The performances of older Celerons are inferior to the other processors, however, the updated D version had better results. Compared to the Sempron 2800+, the Celeron D 335 had good results. The overall Celeron D 335 performance was even a little bit better than the Sempron 2800+. The Sempron had better results with 3D rendering and scientific calculations, however these applications are not usually associated with bottom of the line processors. Finally, the performance of the Sempron 2800+ was equivalent to the Athlon XP 2500+.
In the Sempron line, the 3100+ model is quite attractive. With 32 bits, the difference between the Athlon 64 2800+ and the Sempron is the cache size with 512 KB and 256 KB, respectively. The impact on performance, however, was minimal, because the Athlon 64 2800+ was only 3% faster than the Sempron 3100+.
The Sempron 3100+ was 15% faster than the Celeron D 335. The soon to be released Celeron D 340 (2.93 GHz) will not compete with the Sempron 3100+. Intel has another problem in that the Celeron D 350 (3.2 GHz), equivalent to the Sempron 3100+, will only be released during the first trimester of 2005!
Overclocking
It was difficult for us not to -*test*-('") the overclocking abilities for these processors.
Here were results under stable performances with Prime95 :
Sempron 2800+ : de 2 GHz à 2.5 GHz en 1.85V (+25%)
Sempron 3100+ : de 1.8 GHz à 2.16 GHz en 1.55V (+20%)
Celeron 2.8 GHz : de 2.8 GHz à 3.5 GHz en 1.75V (+25%)
Celeron D 335 : de 2.8 GHz à 3.7 GHz en 1.55V (+32%)
It was possible to overclock all processors but the award went to the Celeron D 335. However, like all Intel 90 nm processors, the Celeron D 335 heats up. So if 2.16 GHz overclocking is possible with the AMD ventirad box, the Celeron D 335 requires a more powerful ventirad than the original it comes with.
With the Celeron D, Intel finally provides a good bottom of the line processor. The Celeron was a great sales success thanks to a frequency announced on OEM computers. However, in the same price range (official prices), AMD processors were better.
In practice, the Celeron D 335 2.8 GHz was 25.7% faster than a Celeron 2.8 GHz, a big performance gap for such a small denominational difference. Performances were, however, still inferior to a Pentium 4 2.4C, for example. It will still be interesting to keep an eye on this processor price in the future for a good bargain.
We have mixed feelings regarding the new Sempron AMD line. The Socket A Sempron doesn’t provide better performances than the standard Athlon XP. An Athlon XP 2800+ is more efficient and at times cheaper than the Sempron 2800+. Due to a busy non-official market for the Athlon XP, the prices announced don’t correspond to official AMD prices. Officially the price of an Athlon XP 2800 + is $150 and $109 for a Sempron 2800+.
For the moment the Sempron 3100+, based on the Athlon 64, uses the Socket 754. This is its most attractive characteristic. Performance with games was excellent and close to the Athlon 64 2800+. It was clearly superior to the other Celerons / Semprons and equivalent to an Athlon XP 3200+.
Of course it doesn’t have the AMD 64 ISA instructions, and the only current use is with Linux, the 64 bit Window version. Accompanying software should be released in a couple of months. Possible gains in performance are yet to be known. The Sempron 3100+,however, uses a Socket 754, also compatible with the Athlon 64 3400+.
In conclusion, results are positive for Intel. This is for the best because the previous Celeron results were dismal. We have mixed feelings about the new AMD line. The Sempron Socket A is not better than the Athlon XP, which remains a good processor. Only the 3100+ version based on the Athlon 64 provides good results and sets the stage for a great future for the Sempron Socket 754 and Socket 939.