any computer pro out there? need some help!

[95Prober 10+ year member]

hi.

i was thinking on buying a laptop and came across an Averatec model that has:

"Mobile AMD Sempron 3000+ Processor"

i have no experience with laptops and was wondering how this one stacks up against other kinds/brands? i also dont know what the 3000+ means?

thanks im a computer newbie who needs advice

Click to read more...

 

[folgrz 10+ year member]

3000+ means that it will run like a 3.0 ghz computer would run just that its an actual slower speed

 

[phildapimp89 10+ year member]

AMD is up there with Intel. Its equivalent to a P4 3ghz processor. Its good stuff

 

[95Prober 10+ year member]

AMD is up there with Intel. Its equivalent to a P4 3ghz processor. Its good stuff

but what does the "Sempron" part mean?

 

[justinschmiidt 10+ year member]

i believe its just a line of processors, like intel M or, or the pentium line.

 

[hofulstrof 10+ year member]

amd's spempron is like pentiums celeron.

what do you plan of doing with your labtop?

 

[helotaxi 5,000+ posts]

The numbering of an AMD chip ranks its speed only in line with other AMD chips. That is a 1.6GHz processor IIRC. It's their budget line processor akin to the Celeron from Intel. No level 2 cache and not as much memory bandwidth as an Athlon or Turion chip. I won't buy anything but AMD because it will typically outperform its Intel equivalent and for less money. I just built a 2.2Ghz Turion64 laptop with a gig of RAM for around $1200 with the OS.

 

[95Prober 10+ year member]

The numbering of an AMD chip ranks its speed only in line with other AMD chips. That is a 1.6GHz processor IIRC. It's their budget line processor akin to the Celeron from Intel. No level 2 cache and not as much memory bandwidth as an Athlon or Turion chip. I won't buy anything but AMD because it will typically outperform its Intel equivalent and for less money. I just built a 2.2Ghz Turion64 laptop with a gig of RAM for around $1200 with the OS.

so the 3000+ Sempron is the equivalent to an "1.6GHz processor" ?

 

[skeptikal Premium Member]

Not quite. It is just how AMD rates their chips. It's equivalent to a 3GHZ processor it just runs @ 1.67ghz. But like helo said it will most likely out perform a 3ghz intel CPU for less money.

 

[addisdar 10+ year member]

AMD has been outperforming Intel for quite some time now on their chips. A Sempron 3000+ will run at the same performance level as an Intel Celeron 3 Ghz processor. I wouldn't expect too high of performance on games though. The missing cache will hurt you on that. If you are wanting to play any high end games on it, ensure that you are using an Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 processor. And make sure it has a decent video card in it.

 

[Phrozt 10+ year member]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif You need to list a lot more than a processor name and speed to spec out your system. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Two very important things that you need to post here if you want any EDUCATED help here:

- what are you going to do with it

- post the system specs (if you're looking at it online, go to the page w/the most numbers and things... post that here, or at least a link).

A quick synopsis though:

- You are looking at budget processors. These will save you money, and work well, but they will not win you any benchmarking contests, and are not "hardcore" chips if you are looking for a laptop from that perspective.

- Intel has always been better at memory management and system resources. They've also always been a better laptop chip for the casual user

- AMD has always been a better gaming chip. MUCH better than intel.

If you're using this for email/writing papers, things like that, go with an intel proc. If you're going for games, definately go for an AMD proc.

I did some research for some further reading if you want to dig more into the topic yourself

Here's a very good comparison to check:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3398581

As you can see, the results are fairly consistant with what I've been saying. Resource wise, intel is usually better. Gaming wise, AMD wins.

If you are just glancing at the pages, I'll point out two key things to look at:

- The graphs are set up as such:

Red bars are OVERCLOCKED results

Green bars are results of unaltered processors

blue bars are mainstream Intel references

yellow bar is AMD mainstream reference

- Aquamark is a comprehensive testing tool that involves intense graphics with intense computing power. Though you will seldom ever (if ever) push your PC to the limits tested in aquamark, it gives you an idea of just how much total abuse the chips can handle.

Here's another good review of the two.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=61&type=expert&pid=1

One thing to keep in mind about the game testing though, each system is using a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GRAPHICS CARD COMPANY. This could easily skew all of their gaming results.

My references:

I researched, bought and built 3 of my own computers

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

doesn't Intel usually have better battery life on laptops to?

 

[Phrozt 10+ year member]

That what I was referring to, yes. Generally, because of SYSTEM resource management, you'll get better battery life, because intel isn't as intense on the system as AMD. However, the difference you see is generally not extreme, and was more noticable in earlier versions of laptop chips.

Both companys have come a long way in system resource management

 

[_DjScrew_ 5,000+ posts]

doesn't Intel usually have better battery life on laptops to?

not from my experience...

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

iirc, AMD has basically been an offshoot of intel technology for years and years. AMD used to PRODUCE intel chips out of its own factories. Intel employed them to help them produce to meet demand, but because of this there was some weird clause in their contract that allowed AMD to produce chips under the AMD name that were identical to Intels. For a while you could swap out Intel and AMD chips and they would work exactly the same on the same motherboards.

In the last few years that has changed, obviously, but AMD chips still retain a mostly-Intel-based design.

I think the person a couple posts above summed it up best though, Intel for productivity, AMD for gaming. But both will be FINE for EITHER. I always choose AMD, mostly because they're cheap and I like their shady history of design theft and connivery. They are like the chip-manufacturing pirate company.

What the **** was I talking about? Man its too early for me to attempt ot communicate...