What are the differences between Sempron and Athlon besides pricing and what are their equivalents in Intel.?
465808
The difference between a Sempron and an Athlon is cache size and also, Semprons are not 64-bit processors but all Athlons are nowadays.  Semprons are comparable to Intel Celerons and Athlon 64s are comparable to the Intel Pentium 4/D.  AMD also has the Athlon 64x2 chips which aren't really comparable to anything made by Intel because Intel has yet to produce a competent dual core processor.\n\nTo keep it simple a Sempron 3100+ will be slower than an Athlon 64 3000+ because the Sempron has less cache it will be slower than the Athlon even if the Athlon is rated at a slower clock speed.\n\nAMD is also working on quad core chips which are due out later this year and Intel is still fumbling around 64-bit and dual core, beat by AMD again, Intel just sucks no wonder they sit at the bottom of every single benchmark.  Don't buy an Intel chip and don't even bother with a Sempron.  Buy an Athlon 64 or Athlon 64x2.  It's a little hard to tell you what to get because prices will drop and new hardware will be out by the time you get around to building your system.  So, check back here in August and I (or someone) will tell you exactly what to buy.
266430
http://www.intel.com/community/index.htm\n\ntry them
335340
One of the main differences in all of Intel's line is Cashe in the processor.\nThe next difference is Dual Core, where it is like 2 processors in one.\nOther differences are tolerance levels for heat and bus speeds.
37775
Semprons are the low end CPUs of AdvancedMicroDevices. They are excellent for cheap workstation like computers and are great for Overclocking. In fact, they are good for gaming as well! A 1.6GHz Sempron 64 2600+ overclocked to 2.6GHz defeated a Pentium 4 Prescott OC'ed to 4GHz several times in a review by xbitlabs.com.\nBasically, the Sempron 64 series owns (they are in both socket 754 and 939 BTW).\n\nPrices\nSempron 64 2600+=69 dollars\nPentium 4 650~220+ dollars\n\nthe choice is quite obvious
162845
The only diffence in the celeron from the pentium is on chip cache size. The Pentium has twice as much cache memory. Same thing goes with the AMD Sempron it has less cache than the Athlon line.
256039
AMD, they're more efficient, and an improvement on Intel's stuff. Intel pioneers, AMD improves. Clock speed isn't everything.
362973
This is the only AMD Athlon that's 4200:\n\nAMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Dual Core Processor \n(2.2GHz, 1MB, 1GHz Bus, Socket 939 - SKU: ADA4200BVBOX)
1090308
you technically couldn't make them the same speed, but unless you are saying like a Intel P4 2.8ghz a Celeron at 2.8 and an AMD Athlon at 2.8, well, the Athlon will beat everything from the Intel 2.8s to about 3.77s to even 4ghz for Intel due to the difference inthe AMD cpu architecture.
22503
I know for a fact that AMD is much better than Intel! AMD's processors run a lot faster and cooler. A cooler running processor is important. Not only does it mean that AMD processors have a faster clock speed than comparable Intel products but AMDs also have a longer life expectancy as well. Plus AMD costs quite a bit less than their Intel counterparts. \nAMD is also ahead on the technology curve as well. They were the first company to introduce the 64-bit PC processor many months ahead of Intel’s 64-bit processor.  This is why I believe that AMD will possibly out live Intel.\nI've had both brands and nobody can even come close AMD’s speed and power! I am running a newer AMD Sempron 3000+ with 512 MB of memory and Windows 2000 Professional SP4 for my operating system and this combination works great.\nFrom now on AMD, is the only processor for me. This is just my honest opinion. And no, I do not work for or get any gratuity from AMD for saying this.
319652
Both Intel and AMD have their plus points. Intel was the pioneer and so has the largest mind share.\n\nAMD has some pioneering work too to its credit. AMD came up with the 64 bit processor earlier than the INTEL range. The range that you have as the popular ones is PENTIUM in the Intel series and the Athlons in AMD. Pentium continues to be the 32 bit processor but Athlons have 64 bit processors.\n\nCost wise AMD has less price while Intel commands a premium. Don't be swayed by the numbers like 3400. You need to read fine prints of each process to know of it.\n\nHowever the 64 bit component of AMD is not very much to use right now as we are still in the 32 bit OS in the normal segment of desktops.\n\nGraphically they both lead into their own forte but AMD scores there due to its 64 bit.\n\nSo as someone said.... its dependent on your budget, your application and then future roadmap\n\nHappy selecting your processor
698166
Well I would take the Core Duo for two reasons.  First it is dual core, and secondly it is a mainstream processor and the Sempron is a budget model which means it has cut down features.  If you were comparing a Core Duo to a Turion X2, I would say go with the Turion X2, but in this case, I would easily say go with the Core Duo.
445657
The sempron is AMD's low end processor, like the celeron from intel.  If you want a good AMD processor go with and AMD Athlon XP or an AMD Athlon 64.  In general AMD is better than intel in my opinion.  They are built on a different architecture, which is what the 3300+ rating means.  It means that the processor is equal to an Intel P4 3.3Ghz.  Some of the AMDs have great overclocking potential, the same cant be said for intel.
198099
Pentium processors have had the best overall performance. However, the new AMD processors are faster than their Pentium counterparts in some tests. In general, you'll pay the most for an Intel processor, which means the AMD processors typically have a better price-performance ratio.\n\nSo conclusion go for AMD Athlon.
734126
The first one is faster than the second one.  533Mhz > 400Mhz.  I would trust crucial.com.  Although both will work for your system.\n\nAlso, buying from a major brand is always better than buying generic.  The memory will perform much better.\n\nAlso again, if I were you, I would look into getting a 512mb stick of RAM instead of the 256mb.  That would give you a grand total of 1024mb or 1gb of ram, which is what I would recommend to take full advantage of that system.\n\nGive this a try . . . http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820231038\n\nAnd to the answer above, yes SODIMM has a 200 pin version.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodimm
231263
The performance differences between the Celeron-466 and the PentiumIII-450 can be illustrated using our CPU Comparator. \nIn summary, the main differences between Celerons and Pentiums are in the areas of bus speed and L2 cache features. Both Pentium-II's and -III's ship with 512kB of secondary (L2) CPU instruction cache. This allows the CPU to store recently used instructions close by and is responsible for much of their high performance.\n\nThe Celerons that Intel first introduced as a low-cost CPU alternative (266 & 300MHz versions) were basically just Pentium-II's without any L2 cache at all. This deficiency really punished Celeron performance when compared to competitive AMD and Cyrix chips. In response, subsequent Celeron versions (300A and up) were provided with 128kB of L2 cache. Though only one-quarter the size of the Pentium cache, it was built to run at the full speed of the respective CPU, rather than at half-speed as in the Pentiums. Due to its higher manufacturing cost and technical issues, the larger Pentium cache memory has always been set to run at only half the speed of the CPU itself. For a full-speed L2 in a Pentium design, you need to get into Intel's (much more expensive) Xeon line.\n\nWhat Intel plays down-- but nearly everyone knows-- is that the full-speed, quarter-size Celeron cache gives them almost the same performance as the half-speed, full-size cache gives Pentiums. Thus you'll find that, for most applications, Celerons rated at the same MHz will equal or better an equivalent Pentium-II, for a much lower price.\n\nFor example:\n\n     Celeron @ 466MHz x 128kB L2 @ 466MHz =>\n     Pentium-II @ 450MHz x 512kB L2 @ 225MHz\n\nPentium-III's are given an added boost with an inherently faster system bus speed (100MHz vs. 66MHz for the Celerons) and Intel's new SSE 3D instruction set. This combination of hardware and firmware enhancements gives Pentium-III's a significant edge over the Celeron's smaller cache and slower bus.\n\n=)
531586
THE INTEL DUO CORE IS MUCH MORE BETTER THAN INTEL PENTUM M \n\nIT RUNS AT 667MHZ  FSB AND M RUNS AT MAX 400MHZ
901039
the processor is decent; if it's a socket 462 motherboard then the Althon 64 is out of the question being the only other alternative a Athlon XP. On the other hand if you have a socket 754 or AM2 go with the Athlon 64 or E6+ Sempron. the sempron comes in models for 462, 754, & AM2 (939alt) motherboards. check if the 2600+ cpu is a E6 (stepping/part no...BX) since the sempron E6+ support SSE3 & AMD64 extentions. If it's a cpu for a socket 462 only SSE1 is supported or if it's a cpu for AM2 they all support SSE3 & AMD64 Extentions.