As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Sempron or Athlon?
Tox
I kill threadshe/himRegistered User regular
I kill threadshe/himRegistered User regular
So, I am somewhat in the market for a new PC. My last PC, a Gateway I purchased about five years ago, finally died a few months back (power supply). I am, unfortunately, low budget, otherwise I would be purchasing another Gateway, since I really had no problems with the system until the power supply died.
I've been looking at low-end, stripped down PCs, and I've already made a few decisions.
1) In the interest of saving money, and general mistrust of rookie Windows OS's, I'm sticking with XP. I do intend to upgrade, but I already have XP, so why spend the money now when I can spend it in six months, after 7 has had time to settle in.
2) Also in the interest of saving a few bucks, I'm going to be temporarily using the DVD/CD-RW from the old box. This is again a short term solution. I want to purchase a high end one, so that I will eventually be able to watch movies on my machine, but that will be quite a ways off.
So, I've basically narrowed it down to two different systems. Both are available online, with fairly similar specs. I'm going to list the differences, because I can't decide which to lean toward.
Option #1 - Sempron $123.99
CPU: AMD Sempron (64-bit) 3000+
RAM: 1024Mb PC3200 400Mhz DDR
HDD: 250Gb SATA 7200rpm
Option #2 - Athlon 64 $117.99
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3200+
RAM: 512Mb PC3200 400Mhz DDR
HDD: 160Gb SATA 7200rpm
Both PCs have the same motherboard, so the graphics and sound, which will be onboard for a while, are identical, along with all the basics (networking, etc).
The big question is, in my opinion, RAM or CPU power? The HDD isn't really important, the ones listed are the "package" options, and I have other HDDs I can use for extra storage space. Both CPUs are 64-bit, but the Athlon has four times the L2 cache, and is (slightly?) faster. The RAM is also slightly important, as I intend to eventually upgrade to Windows 7 (64-bit), which I know I'll need a lot of memory for.
So, essentially, my question is this: Which option represents a better starting point, to you tech experts out there? I've been out of the game since before dual core entered the picture, and CPUs are kind of blowing my mind right now, until I get a bead on how they work nowadays. That's the main reason I'm defaulting to the board for help. So if this seems like an easy question to any of you, that's why.
Feel free to make any helpful comments or ask any questions you feel are relevant to the decision. I don't intend to do much in the way of gaming, aside from occasional WoW'ing. My overall goal is to eventually use the PC for watching movies, listening to music, and the like.
Thanks.
I've been looking at low-end, stripped down PCs, and I've already made a few decisions.
1) In the interest of saving money, and general mistrust of rookie Windows OS's, I'm sticking with XP. I do intend to upgrade, but I already have XP, so why spend the money now when I can spend it in six months, after 7 has had time to settle in.
2) Also in the interest of saving a few bucks, I'm going to be temporarily using the DVD/CD-RW from the old box. This is again a short term solution. I want to purchase a high end one, so that I will eventually be able to watch movies on my machine, but that will be quite a ways off.
So, I've basically narrowed it down to two different systems. Both are available online, with fairly similar specs. I'm going to list the differences, because I can't decide which to lean toward.
Option #1 - Sempron $123.99
CPU: AMD Sempron (64-bit) 3000+
RAM: 1024Mb PC3200 400Mhz DDR
HDD: 250Gb SATA 7200rpm
Option #2 - Athlon 64 $117.99
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3200+
RAM: 512Mb PC3200 400Mhz DDR
HDD: 160Gb SATA 7200rpm
Both PCs have the same motherboard, so the graphics and sound, which will be onboard for a while, are identical, along with all the basics (networking, etc).
The big question is, in my opinion, RAM or CPU power? The HDD isn't really important, the ones listed are the "package" options, and I have other HDDs I can use for extra storage space. Both CPUs are 64-bit, but the Athlon has four times the L2 cache, and is (slightly?) faster. The RAM is also slightly important, as I intend to eventually upgrade to Windows 7 (64-bit), which I know I'll need a lot of memory for.
So, essentially, my question is this: Which option represents a better starting point, to you tech experts out there? I've been out of the game since before dual core entered the picture, and CPUs are kind of blowing my mind right now, until I get a bead on how they work nowadays. That's the main reason I'm defaulting to the board for help. So if this seems like an easy question to any of you, that's why.
Feel free to make any helpful comments or ask any questions you feel are relevant to the decision. I don't intend to do much in the way of gaming, aside from occasional WoW'ing. My overall goal is to eventually use the PC for watching movies, listening to music, and the like.
Thanks.
Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
Tox on
0
Posts
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
I know I can get 512MB of DDR400 for around £10 over here, so I'd imagine you can pick it up reasonably cheap ocver that side of the pond and have the faster processor & a gig for not much more than slower processor & a gig.
Tall-Paul MIPsDroid
Beazle) The old system is a Gateway with a 2.4GHz processor, circa late 2004. It was a low-end, $300 computer back then, and while I probably could just repair the power supply, I don't know that the power supply is all that's damaged, I only know at least the power supply is shot. I haven't verified whether the mobo still works or not because I figured the system was old enough to warrant replacing.
Also, this isn't so much a "save up some cash" scenario as it is a "spending holiday gift cash" scenario, so repairing this PC and saving up for a better one later isn't really viable. I don't make enough to be able to save money right now.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
also, never take a celeron
athlon II x2
Are these computers from 2005 or something?
Seriously you have to get something with a dual core. Do you have a link to these systems?
The fact that the Athlon 64 is cheaper is swaying me in that direction. I can easily upgrade the RAM later, anyway, so that's not really an issue.
You're buying a system that was obsolete several years ago. Chances are, you aren't going to be using it for gaming, and for basic web browsing and email checking under XP, you're not going to notice a difference between the two systems, save the amount of RAM.
Why would he get the Sempron when he could get the Athlon 64? It doesn't matter that both are obsolete, the Athlon is still the stronger, more capable chip.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
I have a Sempron 64 3000+ (on another PC) that's just a relabeled Athlon 64 754. Same difference. Don't let marketing fool you.
Those two CPUs are probably REALLY close in performance, and none are even remotely upgradeable. the 1GB Ram system will probably be faster just because 512 MB ram is shit.
Edit: The Athlon has more cache, but they're pretty similar. Also, the Athlon runs at 2GHz and the Sempron at 1.8GHz. Just overclock the Sempron and they'll be almost equal.
He answered yesterday. And i don't think a bit more cache on a slow single core single channel CPU will make a bigger difference when using word and firefox than the incredibly huge jump from 512MB to 1GB.