AMD SEMPRON 3400 DRIVER

Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel. The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1. The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D. AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price.

Uploader:	Arashizragore
Date Added:	15 July 2016
File Size:	17.37 Mb
Operating Systems:	Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads:	68386
Price:	Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

We use three games, plus 3DMark05, to check out game performance. Our three test-bed systems had the following configurations: Now we turn to actual performance using real applications.

Sempron 3400+ Review

In our final test render, we see Intel close the gap a bit. Endnotes SPECapc 3ds max test: The Sempron soundly outpaces amc Celeron D, and the Athlon 64 is a little faster still.

It runs at 2. We used Adobe After Effects 6.

The more expensive Athlon 64 chip is dramatically faster. In the SPECapc test of 3dx Max 6, which runs scripts that simulate interactive model and animation creation rather than simply final rendering, AMD steps all over Intel.

Good performance for the price; best-of-class gaming performance; bit support; SSE3 support; and improved memory support. The advanced profile adds more functionality for encoding WMV files, including de-noise, interlaced, and progressive encoding options.

The smaller cache and lower pin count of Socket help AMD produce Sempron chips much more cheaply, and the small die size in combination with reduced clock speeds makes for a cooler-running chip, too.

With a serious advantage in cache size, we would expect the Athlon xempron to perform better, but it also costs more.

AMD Sempron 3400+ 1.8GHz (SDA3400IAA3CW) Processor

Sure, the Athlon 64 with its larger cache and larger price tag is faster than the Sempron, but the budget chip still manages to hold its own, and it just creams the Celeron D. The difference is just enormous, with the Sempron completing the test encode almost twice as fast as the Celeron D.

The reduced cache size affects both memory and CPU tests. The Athlon 64 is a bit better than the Sempron, but both are quite a bit faster than the Celeron D. In the low-budget lines, the tables are turned a bit.

There are three major differentiators between Athlon 64 and Sempron lines:. We extract two of the multithreading results from PCMark05 for one set of multitasking numbers, then run Photoshop Elements and Norton AntiVirus simultaneously as another test. The performance difference between the Sempron and Celeron is just huge. We first performed an extensive set of benchmarks using good old bit Windows XP Professional.

We can say this, though: The Celeron line lacks Hyper-Threading, and it really hurts them. PCMark05 consists of a series of synthetic benchmark suites, each designed to test individual subsystems, such as memory, processor, and hard drive.

AMD has a winner here, despite the relatively high price.

In the real world, amr optimizations can vary widely. The hard drives were defragged prior to each major benchmark run. AMD has moved the Sempron line away from Socket A and all the motherboard eccentricities that went along with it, so we have no problem recommending it for low-cost machines.

This Socket CPU runs at 3. All make fairly heavy use of the processor and memory subsystem.

AMD Sempron + GHz (SDAIAA3CW) Processor | eBay

The story is the same in LightWave rendering. We also perform a pair of pure rendering tests with 3ds max, and run the latest POV-Ray 3. Also, we used the rundll The games include Doom 3, Painkiller 1.