I'm getting ready to purchase my first AMD system, and I've got a problem picking out a processor. Just when I think I understand, I read a new review and get confused again because nobody seems to have a strong opinion about either of the follow processors either way.
So what I want to know is, which is better
AMD Athlon Pro 3300A+ (integrated)
Or
AMD Sempron 2400+ (non-integrated)

I know they have comperable clock speeds, but they must differ one way or another. I can tell because the little numbers after the names are different. Iv'e been to the AMD website to try and compare them, but it's hard to compare them without a side-by-side. Thanks.

I tested a Sempron 3100 against an AThlon 64 bit 2800, the 2800, blew it away in everything I tested it on.

I hope this helps you.

I would just compare pricing, if the 64 bit 2800 is cheaper, then it's the obvious choice.

I buy all of my things from www.newegg.com

:D

The price is the same, probably because the clock speeds are almost identical. Normally, I'd be inclinded to believe that if the price is the same, and the clock speeds are the same then they're probably the same or at least close enough so that it wouldn't really matter once you turn the machine on. However, in this case I've heard that the Sempron is to an Intel Celeron, as an Atholon is to a Pentium 4. I.e. budget vs. performance.

So if one is budget, and the other's performance, but they're the same clock speed and FBS, what's the difference? The reason I ask at all is because when I ordered this machine they told me they were switching the Athlon Pro 3300A+ for a Sempron 2400 and called it an upgrade because the Sempron's not intgrated to the motherboard, which would make upgrading to the next generation of processor easier. Ever since I've been wondering if that's truly an upgrade, or if they stuck me with an inferior chip to the one I'd originally blindly picked because it had a bigger number at the end.

But if you've tested a Sempron vs. Athlon 64, and the Athlon out performed the Sempron even though it was better by 300 giggerjiggies or whatever that number is supposed to represent (I think it's supposed to be 3100A+ * 14.5 newtons / the distance of an eastbound train leaving Boston at 4:00 travelling 160mph for 2 hours = 1.23Ghz)

If course that would mean 3100 - 2800 = I got screwed. Unfortunately, I didn't trade an Athlon 64, because as I understand it the 64 series is the crown jewel of AMDs catalog. So from what I heard nothing beats a 64 series. But I traded an Athlon Pro, which I think might also be an XP? I don't know about that yet. So unless an Athlon always out-paces a Sempron, there's still a shot it was an even trade after all. Thanks for the help, though, because at least now I know what I'm going to be upgrading to the next time I go through all this.

I think if you look at the processroadmap from AMD:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...18_608,00.html

It seems to indicate that Semprons are a lower end chip. It appears to have less L2 cache and be marketed at home buyers.

I took a look at the roadmap when I was trying to compare the two originally. The problem with the roadmap is the same as the entire AMD website- No clear definition of products. This is a desktop processor, so on the roadmap I look under that category and I see 5 chips, 3 are Athlon 64s, two are Semprons. I know any 64 line processor is going to be better because it's a 64. But what the AMD website, nor any review I've seen doesn't say is whether an Athlon Pro (not 64) is better than a Sempron, or more importantly, what the difference is. People, apparently, love to compare Intel to AMD. I've found no shortage of that, for sure.

At this point I guess I'm just willing to just say that since the clock speeds are the same, there must not be a huge difference except that Semprons are marketted towards home users (i.e. the processor will have trouble making friends and will probably be bullied.) and the Athlons are marketed towards performace users (i.e. So people will sound cooler when they describe their computers to people.) Since every component in the machine will be three times better than the one I have now, I suppose no matter what I'll be content. It still bugs the crap out me that neither of these chips seem to be any different from the other.

The Sempron is a "value" processor. I'm not sure of the exact difference, but it is probably "crippled" compared to the Athlon 64 (probably a lot less cache memory, for instance).

However, that does not mean the Sempron is useless. You will need to balance the extra price of an Athlon 64 with the performance benefit...

The question isn't whether an Athlon 64 is better, because a 64 is a different animal entirely. It has 64 bit instruction support. The processor I'm talking about comparing are two 32s. But at least you got me going in the right direction, because after comparing the TOTAL cache for each processor I found out the only difference is that the Athlon Pro 3300A+ has 640Kb and the Sempron has 512Kb. So that must be it, even though both of those figures are exaggerated, since neither would actually operate like that under normal conditions. Thanks for all the help everyone.

Watch out for AMD pro 3100a processors. THESE ARE FAKE. The actual processor is a old athlon 2200, with a AMD pro 3100a fan.

I almost fell into this trap, and I never want anyone to do the same.