Advice on Athlon XP-M, please?

m3csl2004 · 18 Apr 2006 at 16:26

would be a bit nippier due to dual channel on 939

if you can get a decent clocking sempron then your lauging

Mul · 18 Apr 2006 at 16:41

Really, just avoid the 128kb L2 cached Semprons. I've handled Sempron 64's with 256kb L2 and they are very nice performers

Mul

clemenzina · 18 Apr 2006 at 19:02

I've ordered a Sempron 64 3100+ L2 256kb, with a Biostar GeForce6100 mobo which, if flashed with TForce6100 bios, is a great overclocker, I'm told (as I've posted elsewhere here, and Biostar-US sent me the latest bios within minutes of me telling them it wouldn't download from their site).

I'll only ever have a superficial understanding of PC matters, but I do read a lot before I do anything new and haven't come a-cropper so far... it's great having advice on tap from you fellas

clemenzina

FatRakoon · 18 Apr 2006 at 19:17

Oh no. not the 3100???

Only joking my good friend.

If you are going to clock that ( Which wont be too difficult ) up to about 2.4, then it wont be a million miles off the speed of a ClawHammer 3700 ( Apart from the cache that is ) but you will find that its a very capable CPU in spite of how much I whinge about them.

I got one, and I have done a few simple tests at 2.4, comparing that against my NewCastle 3000 @ 2.4 and the Claw3700 @ stock ( erm, 2.4 ) and there is very little difference TBH between them all... Its only under heavy load that the cache comes more into play.

clemenzina · 18 Apr 2006 at 19:47

FatRakoon said:
Oh no. not the 3100???

Only joking my good friend.

Me too

clemenzina

Cyber-Mav · 18 Apr 2006 at 20:38

sempron socket A is crappy.

FatRakoon · 18 Apr 2006 at 20:48

clemenzina said:

Classic mate - PMPL

Cyber-Mav said:
sempron socket A is crappy.

What about the Barton cored ones?

I got a mate who has a barton cored Sempron 3000, and his arguement is that its a barton core, while mine is that its a sempron no matter what.

Ok, its got 512k Cache, so that helps, so is this the one and only sempron thats any cop then?

m3csl2004 · 18 Apr 2006 at 20:53

the skt a semprons (non barton) are faster then tbreds at stock as they have a 333 fsb over the 266 of the old athlon xp's

they still suck comared to the 754 ones though

Mul · 18 Apr 2006 at 20:57

The barton would've been quite good I reckon. 512kb L2 cache, 333FSB and 2.0Ghz puts it reasonably against a Barton XP 2800+?

Mul

m3csl2004 · 18 Apr 2006 at 23:40

Mul said:
The barton would've been quite good I reckon. 512kb L2 cache, 333FSB and 2.0Ghz puts it reasonably against a Barton XP 2800+?

Mul

dont mate, weve been there, youll just end up with a massive thread saying semprons are crap

trust me (your right btw)

FatRakoon · 19 Apr 2006 at 01:14

m3csl2004 said:
dont mate, weve been there, youll just end up with a massive thread saying semprons are crap

trust me (your right btw)

Semprons are crap

Seriously though, my first 64Bit PC was a Winchester 3200... From a Barton 3200 ... Erm, actually its still my most used PC even though I now have better.

When I compared general running apps ( outlook, IE, Office etc all runnign at once ) I didnt notice any speed increase at all... I also burn 4 DVDs at a time, and even play HL2 / Doom3 just fine while all that is on, and I found the barton 3200 was, and is more than capable of handling anythign I can throw at it.

At this time, I have a 6800GT in my barton / NF7s system and it plays games far better than most of my other systems.... Its comparable with a P4 3.6 & x800GTO2.

Hell, the Barton will still walk all over pretty much any stock Celeron out there, so we cannot just walk away from such a serious 32Bit CPU.

Not only that, but many people simply cannot afford or perhaps wont justify going 64 bit just for the hell of it... Unless you go high end, there is no real need to... somehting like an A64-3200 isnt really any quicked than a barton 3200, no matter whether a Sempron or not, so going for 64Bit just for the sake of it, is a wrong thing to do, especially if they are not going to get any serious improvements... Sure, if they want Dual core, or are wanting serious speeds, then go for it, but you really are looking towards at least 2GHZ and a non-Sempron at that to even start to justify the costs needed. In fact, I would say that if anyone has a barton 3200 and they do fancy going 64Bit, to not bother at all with even the best semprons out there, cos they just are not going to see any real improvements in speed unless they are going to clock the hell out of it.

VeNT · 19 Apr 2006 at 01:30

no dual chan memory tho, so you losing that too not just the L2 cash

FatRakoon · 19 Apr 2006 at 01:50

EH?

Socket A can have Dual channel memory.
Some socket 754s dont have dual channel also.

Just because its 64Bit, does not also mean that its got automatic dual channel.

Example - some of my systems =

Abit NF7S & XPM2500 @ 2.6 - 2x512MB Corairs XMS3500 = Dual channel
MSI Neo2 & X2 4400 @ Stock - 2x1GB Corsair 4400 Plat = 128Bit Dual channel
DFI LP250GB UT & Claw3700 - 2x512MB OCZ = 64Bit Single channel?

hang on, the ECS NForce 3+ has a Sempron 3100 in it... I need to check what that does and its at work... I may be confusing the DFI with that, so I need to verify those 2

ajgoodfellow · 19 Apr 2006 at 01:53

FatRakoon said:
Some socket 754s dont have dual channel also.

All Socket 754 setups have single channel memory as the memory controller is built into the CPU itself and Socket 754 A64 CPUs don't support dual channel memory

The CPUs are clocked 200MHz higher for the same PR rating to counteract this. For example, an A64 3000+ on Socket 754 is clocked at 2GHz with 512KB L2 cache. An A64 3000+ on Socket 939 is clocked at 1.8Ghz with 512KB L2 cache

Mattus · 19 Apr 2006 at 01:57

All Socket A and 754 CPUs run in single-channel mode, as the CPUs aren't capable of dual-channel operation. Whether the motherboards run in dual-channel mode is another issue, but without the CPU support it makes minimal difference unless you're running integrated graphics.

Actually it doesn't make much difference even with S939. In dual-channel mode I get twice the bandwidth in Sandra but only about 10% more performance.

ajgoodfellow · 19 Apr 2006 at 02:01

But the memory controller is built into the CPU for Socket 754 A64 CPUs so there's no way that the motherboard could be running in dual channel

This is different for Socket A as this uses the traditional FSB arrangement with the memory controller integrated into the northbridge on the motherboard

Mattus · 19 Apr 2006 at 02:07

Good point. Then it's impossible for a 754 system to run any form of dual-channel mode. Socket A can take limited advantage of it in some situations.

FatRakoon · 19 Apr 2006 at 14:33

Oh yeah, your right.

The thing is, that I have so many PCs ( Socket A, 754 & 939 and also one of those P4 thingys too ) , its almost impossible to keep track of what is capable of what?

m3csl2004 · 19 Apr 2006 at 20:39

Mattus said:
Good point. Then it's impossible for a 754 system to run any form of dual-channel mode. Socket A can take limited advantage of it in some situations.

socket a is dual channel.... - just becasue the mem controller os on the northbridge doesnt mean it takes limited advantage

edit: and it takes better advantage then 939, skt a loves mem bandwidth

james.miller · 19 Apr 2006 at 20:42

m3csl2004 said:
socket a is dual channel.... - just becasue the mem controller os on the northbridge doesnt mean it takes limited advantage

The truth is they werent designed for dual channel, so there is little gain using it on a socket a system. You have to design a cpu to take advantage of the memory, AMD never did that with socket a. Remember when socket a was released they were all using sd-ram.