Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

CPU ComparIsion: AMD Sempron 3000+ vs. Intel Pentium 4 2.80GHz


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 cesses

cesses

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:20 AM

Posted 06 February 2015 - 04:40 AM

According to www.cpubenchmark.net and their CPU List we can see the next:

 

   AMD Sempron 3000+         >>   Passmark CPU Mark (higher is better) of 407,

   Intel Pentium 4 2.80GHz    >>   Passmark CPU Mark (higher is better) of 329.

 

 

Can someone eplain to me why AMD Sempron 3000+ is better? His Frequency is 2.0 GHz what is descriptive lower then 2.80 GHz of Intel Pentium 4 2.80GHz?

 

As I can understand AMD Sempron 3000+ with his 2.0 GHz (but as I can see: 1.60 GHz on my PC) is not so perfect to run Windows 7. What I can expect from CPU with 2.8 GHz?

 

Namely, can someone eplain to me relation between CPU potentiality and ability to run, without problems, i.e Windows 7?

 

Cpubenchmark rating system? Can I use it as relevant?


Edited by cesses, 06 February 2015 - 04:42 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 cesses

cesses
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:20 AM

Posted 08 February 2015 - 02:01 PM

   AMD Sempron 3000+         >>   Passmark CPU Mark (higher is better) of 407,

   Intel Pentium 4 2.80GHz    >>   Passmark CPU Mark (higher is better) of 329.

 

 

Can someone eplain to me why AMD Sempron 3000+ is better?

 

Is Cpubenchmark rating system relevant?



#3 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:09:20 AM

Posted 08 February 2015 - 03:20 PM

It's "better" because it performed the particular tests used by that benchmark software (Passmark) in a shorter time than it took the Pentium 4.  Clock speed (Ghz) is only relevant when comparing processors within the same family, and even then it can be lead to incorrect conclusions (a 20% increase in CPU clock speed, does not necessarily = 20% increase in performance).  Different comparisons are available, for example here - http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/browse/246_33,239_33,511_33,402_29,352_23,352_20,666_51,335_21,285_21,415_22/?c_test=25&PROCESS=Show+Selected (contians Pentium 4 HT which performs better than non HT models, as that is the only one in their database)

 

The Sempron and Pentium 4 have different CPU architectures.  The Pentium 4 was designed with high clock speeds in mind, but this optimisation resulted in poor "per clock cycle" general performance compared to AMD's offerings of the time.  Intel abandoned Netburst (the Pentium 4 architecture) entirely around 2007/2008 and replaced it with the Core 2 series.

 

Both processors are old and massively outclassed by even the cheapest budget processors available today (e.g. compare against a Celeron G1840 which is online for around $37, or an AMD 5150, which is about the same price, but uses very cheap motherboards).  CPU Benchmark compare.  I would suggest a more up to date dual-core or better processor for Windows 7.


7sbvuf-6.png


#4 cesses

cesses
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:20 AM

Posted 09 February 2015 - 03:39 PM

Thanks so much for the answer !!! So concrete !!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users