Need Help with Amd's CPU's

By Cyber
Aug 24, 2005
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AMD Sempron
    AMD Athlon XP
    AMD Athlon 64

    What is the diffrence between those three diffrent types of chips . Which one is best for Video editing... and what would you rate them out of 10. and i wana know more abt AMD Sempron and its performance...

    thx
  2. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    athlonXP > older 32-bit cpu, out of production
    sempron > 32 and 64 bit versions available, this is an athlonXP replacement and is designed for budget systems. not a heavyweight cpu.
    athlon64 > newer 64-bit design, refined technology, best performance, inexpensive. (stay away from the 130nm newcastle core, buy 90nm cpus only)

    out of the three units you listed there, the athlon64 is the best. the semprons are inexpensive cpus that deliver lesser performance than that of a comparitive a64.
  3. DonNagual

    DonNagual TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 3,566

  4. Cyber

    Cyber Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 89

    Thx

    Hi

    Thx, DonNagual & zephead... now i know which is the best chip but is a sempron 3000+ good for video editing... just curious

    thx
  5. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    in a word, no. you'll want a 90nm a64 3200+ or better for reasonable performance. don't forget that you'll need 1 or 2 gb of ram, the latter being a good choice.
  6. Cyber

    Cyber Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 89

    Thx

    Thx, Zephead now i know what i am looking for
  7. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 10,074   +13

    I still don't see spending a whole lot of money on an Athlon 64 CPU when the software outthere that supports 64 bit is limited.

    If money is an issue, go with a 3200+ XP CPU. Even though they're out of production, they're easy to obtain and offer great performance.
  8. DonNagual

    DonNagual TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 3,566

    I guess it all depends on what socket his current motherboard supports, doesn't it...
  9. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    ahh, think of the future tedster.

    plus the a64s have many significant technological advantages over the athlonXP. the athlonXP is already obsolete, and offers aged subsystems. the a64s can be paired with the latest and greatest chipsets and technologies.
  10. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 10,074   +13

    well, that's fine to think about the future, but cost is a huge factor when going the 64 route. At the moment, I just don't see enough support out there on the market in terms of software and driver support that justifies the huge cost of 64bit chips.

    It's not just a matter of "hey- go with an AMD 64", it's a matter of "um, do I have to buy a new printer, scanner, modem, etc...." "will my printer, scanner, etc manufactuer update my drivers?"

    The CPU alone for 64 bits is very expensive, when you factor in the other hardware it can get VERY expensive.

    Now, if you're starting from scratch, then yes - go 64 ..... just make sure all your components with support 64 bit drivers and make sure they're available for your system.
  11. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 5,899

    Hum, you do know that Athlon64 work perfectly & natively with all existing 32-bit hardware, OS, drivers, software, games, etc. Not only that, but when running in 32-bit, it runs faster then any other 32-bit CPU currently available (Pentium-III, Pentium-IV, AthlonXP, Duron, etc.).

    If you also wish to have the latest in hardware such as PCI-e, it's the only way to go. You also get a NX-bit capable, cool'n'quiet, SSE2/SSE3 running chip. There is simply no reason at all to get an AthlonXP at this point in time.
     
  12. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 10,074   +13

    that may be true, but you're not running in 64 bit mode!!!!

    The whole point for going 64 is to use a 64 bit capabilities. Right now, there just isn't enough software and driver support for me to justify going to a 64 bit system.
  13. Didou

    Didou Bowtie extraordinair! Posts: 5,899

    So ? When the Radeon 9700 first came out, DirectX 9 wasn't even available. Does that mean it couldn't use FSAA & AF at high-res for all existing games ? It's the same here. You get a CPU that has everything you could ask for & only gets better once you use it in 64-bit.

    I really don't understand your opposition to it. If it was capable of running in 64-bit only, then you would have a point. Right now, you don't.
  14. Tedster

    Tedster Techspot old timer..... Posts: 10,074   +13

    my point is, get a 64 bit system to run 64 bit operating systems and software, or to prepare yourself for that when it's ready. I speculate by the time Windoze 64 or Windoze Vista is fully ready to AMD 64 systems, the AMD 64 will be on its way out and something else will have replaced it by then.

    At the moment, we are still very much in a 32bit environment. I see the AMD 64 as being way ahead of its time. (Which is a good thing.)
    :grinthumb
  15. zephead

    zephead TechSpot Paladin Posts: 2,483

    athlonXPs are cheap, but the money is better spent on the a64. an athlonXP would just cost him more down the road, mabye when the prices aren't so subtle.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.