Amd sempron equivalent intel processor: AMD Sempron 145 vs Intel Core i3-550 @ 3.20GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

AMD Sempron 145 vs Intel Core 2 Duo E4600

Comparative analysis of AMD Sempron 145 and Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.

AMD Sempron 145

Buy on Amazon

Intel Core 2 Duo E4600

Buy on Amazon

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Sempron 145

CPU is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 11 month(s) later
Around 17% higher clock speed: 2.8 GHz vs 2.4 GHz
A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 45 nm vs 65 nm
2x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
Around 44% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 65 Watt
Around 7% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 1001 vs 933
Around 16% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 325 vs 279

Launch date	September 2010 vs October 2007
Maximum frequency	2. 8 GHz vs 2.4 GHz
Manufacturing process technology	45 nm vs 65 nm
L1 cache	128 KB (per core) vs 64 KB
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	45 Watt vs 65 Watt
PassMark — Single thread mark	1001 vs 933
Geekbench 4 — Single Core	325 vs 279

Reasons to consider the Intel Core 2 Duo E4600

1 more cores, run more applications at once: 2 vs 1
2x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
Around 69% better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 854 vs 506
Around 55% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 491 vs 317

Number of cores	2 vs 1
L2 cache	2048 KB vs 1024 KB (per core)
PassMark — CPU mark	854 vs 506
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core	491 vs 317

Compare benchmarks

CPU 1: AMD Sempron 145
CPU 2: Intel Core 2 Duo E4600

PassMark — Single thread mark

CPU 1

CPU 2

PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1

CPU 2

Geekbench 4 — Single Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core

CPU 1

CPU 2

Name	AMD Sempron 145	Intel Core 2 Duo E4600
PassMark — Single thread mark	1001	933
PassMark — CPU mark	506	854
Geekbench 4 — Single Core	325	279
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core	317	491

Compare specifications (specs)

	AMD Sempron 145	Intel Core 2 Duo E4600
Architecture codename	Sargas	Conroe
Launch date	September 2010	October 2007
Launch price (MSRP)	$95
Place in performance rating	2552	2606
Price now	$16. 98	$157.95
Value for money (0-100)	14.02	2.58
Vertical segment	Desktop	Desktop
Processor Number		E4600
Series		Legacy Intel® Core™ Processors
Status		Discontinued
64 bit support
Die size	117 mm	111 mm2
L1 cache	128 KB (per core)	64 KB
L2 cache	1024 KB (per core)	2048 KB
Manufacturing process technology	45 nm	65 nm
Maximum frequency	2. 8 GHz	2.4 GHz
Number of cores	1	2
Transistor count	234 million	167 million
Base frequency		2.40 GHz
Bus Speed		800 MHz FSB
Maximum core temperature		73.3°C
VID voltage range		0.8500V-1.5V
Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR1, DDR2, DDR3
Max number of CPUs in a configuration	1	1
Sockets supported	AM3	LGA775
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	45 Watt	65 Watt
Low Halogen Options Available
Package Size		37. 5mm x 37.5mm
Execute Disable Bit (EDB)
Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT)
Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology
FSB parity
Idle States
Intel 64
Intel® AES New Instructions
Intel® Demand Based Switching
Intel® Hyper-Threading technology
Intel® Turbo Boost technology
Thermal Monitoring
Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x)

Navigation

Choose a CPU

Compare processors

Compare AMD Sempron 145 with others

AMD
Sempron 145

vs

AMD
Athlon 64 3400+

AMD
Sempron 145

vs

AMD
Sempron 3200+

AMD
Sempron 145

vs

Intel
Core i7-920

AMD
Sempron 145

vs

Intel
Core i3-530

AMD
Sempron 145

vs

Intel
Celeron E3400

AMD
Sempron 145

vs

AMD
FX-4300

Page not found

We couldn’t find such page: /en/cpu/sempron-145-vs-core-i3-8109u%23benchmarks

Popular graphics cards comparisons

GeForce RTX
3060 Ti

GeForce RTX
3060

GeForce RTX
2060 Super

GeForce RTX
3060

GeForce GTX
1060 6 GB

Radeon RX
580

GeForce RTX
3060 Ti

GeForce RTX
3070

GeForce GTX
1660 Super

GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB

GeForce GTX
1660 Super

Radeon RX
580

Popular graphics cards

GeForce RTX
4090

Radeon RX
580

Radeon RX
Vega 7

GeForce GTX
1650

GeForce GTX
1050 Ti

GeForce RTX
3060

Popular CPU comparisons

Ryzen 5
5600X

Core i5
12400F

Ryzen 5
3600

Ryzen 5
5500

Core i5
10400F

Core i3
12100F

Ryzen 5
3600

Core i5
10400F

Ryzen 5
3600

Core i3
12100F

Core i5
12400F

Core i5
13400F

Popular CPUs

EPYC
9654

Ryzen 5
5500U

Core i3
1115G4

Core i5
12400F

Core i5
1135G7

Ryzen 5
3600

AMD Sempron and other processors of late 2004 — choosing the best

Autumn is the time of the annual chick count and a good reason to get a new computer. Over the summer, new names have appeared and become familiar: Sempron, LGA775, PCI Express, so let’s try to analyze the current situation, together we will choose the most useful processor from the point of view of an overclocker.

Beginners have a lot of questions about new AMD processors for Socket A — AMD Sempron. I don’t see anything interesting in them, since only the name has changed — they are still our old acquaintances Athlon XP based on Thoroughbred and Thorton cores, only now they are designed to operate at 166 MHz bus frequency. Is it good or bad? From an overclocker’s point of view, it’s more bad than good…

What is the average overclocking potential of Socket A AMD processors? 2200 MHz. Of course, due to many different reasons (motherboard, memory, power supply, weak cooler, bad case, unsuccessful processor copy), you can not reach this frequency, and sometimes you can block it, but in general we can assume that the limit is in the area 2.2 GHz. Now, by tradition and based on common sense, we take the youngest processor in the line — this is AMD Sempron 2200+. Its real frequency is 1500 MHz, and the multiplier that most processors with a release date after 39-th week of last year cannot be changed, equal to x9 (166×9=1500).

Now let’s consider what frequency of the FSB bus we need to achieve in order to get the desired processor frequency of 2.2 GHz? 2200:9= 244.4 MHz . Is your motherboard capable of stable operation at this frequency? Not sure. What about memory? Especially! But to achieve maximum efficiency, motherboards based on the nForce 2 chipset (you have one, right?) must work in synchronous mode, when the FSB frequency and the memory bus frequency are the same.

It turns out that the optimal processor for overclocking should be the one whose multiplier is not less than x11 . I proceed from the assumption that DDR400 memory operating at 200 MHz has already become the standard, and all modern motherboards for Socket A can easily operate at the same frequency of 200 MHz. As a result, we can easily get the desired 2. 2 GHz with synchronous operation of the processor and memory (200×11=2200), and if necessary, we can quite painlessly cover these limits and overclock the processor and memory a little higher.

Now we are looking for a processor with a multiplier x11 and we can easily find it — AMD Sempron 2600+, which operates at a frequency of 1833 MHz in the nominal mode (166×11=1833). Well, it remains to declare AMD Sempron 2600+ the optimal Socket A processor for overclocking and move on? No, in reality it’s not so simple… When buying, we look not only at the performance and overclocking potential of the processor, but also at its cost, as well as possible alternatives in the form of other processors.

Have you forgotten that there is another processor with the multiplier we need? Yes, I’m talking about the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ processor based on the Barton core, which almost completely repeats the characteristics of the AMD Sempron 2600+ with one small exception — it has twice the amount of cache memory. Compare processors:

Name	AMD Sempron 2600+	AMD Athlon XP 2500+
Bus frequency, MHz	166	166
Multiplier	x11	x11
Operating frequency, MHz	1833	1833
Process technology, micron	0.13	0.13
Cache size, KB	256	512

So, these are the same processors manufactured using the same technical process, which means that their overclocking potential is also the same and is equal to the same 2. 2 GHz. Now we look at the price… and we are surprised — it is also the same and is around $80! Moreover, today’s realities are such that newer AMD Sempron 2600+ processors even cost a little more! So why are they needed then, if for the same or even less money we can get a better processor?

In the future, if the cost of AMD Sempron 2600+ decreases or the price of AMD Athlon XP 2500+ increases, it will be possible to consider AMD Sempron 2600+ processors as an object for purchase, but now I see no prerequisites for this and the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ processor still first on the list.

recommendations

However, two important reservations must be made here. Firstly, as before, I recommend buying any Socket A AMD processors. AMD Sempron processors, like the junior AMD Athlon XP processors, and the older (1600-1800 MHz) AMD Duron processors are still leaders in terms of price / performance ratio for low-cost computers. No other processor will give you that speed for a ridiculous price of less than $50.

Secondly, paradoxically, I can no longer unconditionally recommend these processors, as I did a year ago. A year ago, AMD’s Socket A processors were the perfect choice for the overclocker. Thanks to an unfixed multiplier, they allowed you to adjust to the capabilities of any motherboard or memory. The chance to successfully modify a Thorton processor to include the missing 256 KB of cache allowed us to save even more, and in the end we got the maximum performance possible.

Now these times are far behind and it must be admitted that the era of Socket A processors has gone forever, despite the fact that they will be present on the market and work in our computers for a long time to come. And the point is not even in the blocked multipliers, but in the technological capabilities of the processors. The situation is similar to the one with Intel Celeron processors based on the Tualatin core. Inexpensive, superbly overclockable, based on the old P3 architecture, but therefore much more efficient than the new P4, these processors also disappeared from the scene, although they still work properly in ours.
processor overclocking statistics
from time to time there are new results of their overclocking.

And the thing is that even when overclocked, they are not able to overcome the barrier of 1500-1700 MHz of the operating frequency, which means that they cannot fully unlock the potential of a modern powerful video card, their computing abilities are no longer enough for today’s tasks. The situation is the same with AMD Socket A processors — they have not changed much: they still have an attractive price, they still overclock, but that’s the whole trouble, that they are still, and not better than before! Buying a Socket A processor today, you know, just like a year ago, that you are limiting yourself in advance to the 2.2 GHz limit that this processor can overclock to. And if a year ago it was an excellent result, today it is no longer enough.

Look at the test results of new video cards from ATI and NVIDIA, compare their performance when overclocked and at different resolutions. Let’s take the article «NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT and GeForce 6800: overclocking and reworking» as an example. Look — the video card accelerates, the resolution increases, and the speed remains almost unchanged! Why? Yes, because the speed is limited by the processor, not the video card, although this is far from the weakest AMD Athlon 64 3400+. Only when moving to resolutions of about 1600×1200, only when full-screen anti-aliasing and high-level anisotropic filtering are enabled, do we begin to see the difference, and finally we manage to load the video card sufficiently.

What does this say? Yes, that for such insanely powerful video cards, even the 2.2 GHz provided by the AMD Athlon 64 processor is not enough, and even more so, the 2.2 GHz that the regular Athlon XP can provide is not enough for them. That is why AMD Athlon XP processors can still be considered a good choice for an overclocker, but with one very significant caveat — if you are satisfied with the performance limited by the 2200 MHz barrier.

Speaking of AMD Athlon 64. Unfortunately, the situation hasn’t changed much lately. Yes, the cost of processors has fallen below $200, and the price of motherboards has approached $100, which indicates an approximate parity with Intel and that the total cost of the platform is already quite acceptable. Yes, there are processors based on the new core that overclock better, motherboards based on the NVIDIA nForce 3 250 chipset and the new Socket 939… This is where the list of good news ends…

Now AMD is losing time catastrophically, every day that has passed is working for a competitor. At the moment, Intel also has nothing like the overclocking hits of the past: Celeron Tualatin 1000 MHz, Pentium 4 1.6A or Pentium 4 2.4C. If now the shelves were littered with such a number of boards and processors for Athlon 64, which is available for Socket A, then Intel would lose a considerable share of the market. However, what do we see in stores? At best, these are one or two Socket 754 motherboards and two or three A64 processors — what can we talk about in this case?

Yes, any motherboard based on VIA K8T800 or NVIDIA nForce 3 150 chipsets is enough to overclock processors on the old core. despite all their advantages, it is useless to even look for them — they are not on sale. What is the conclusion? There is no overclocker hit among AMD Athlon 64 and no special efforts on the part of the manufacturer to popularize the platform. As an illustration of my words, I propose to recall the article «Can AMD Athlon 64 2800+ become an overclocker’s choice?». However, we shouldn’t forget that megahertz even in ordinary Athlon XP processors is much more «weighty» than those «airy» ones that we get when overclocking Pentium 4, and in Athlon 64 they are even more serious and full-weighted. Therefore, even with a slight overclocking of Athlon 64 processors, we get very high performance as a result.

Well, let’s turn to a competitor and see what’s going on among Intel processors. Not good either. Perhaps only the release of Celeron D processors based on the Prescott core can be called an absolute success. They overclock quite well, the price is low, and the performance has improved significantly compared to the old Celerons. If earlier Celeron processors were bought only by those who were fascinated by the cherished word «Intel» on the package, who were misled by talkative sellers who only need to «sell» and who are simply poorly versed in computers, now the purchase of Celeron D is more justified.

More justified, but this does not mean that it is completely justified, I do not recommend everyone to switch to Celeron D at all. Socket A processors from AMD have not gone anywhere, which can provide the same or more performance for the same or less money, but … it’s not for long. The frequency of Celeron D processors will continue to grow, and the frequency of Socket A processors has stopped at around 2.2 GHz, so the issue of superiority is just a matter of time.

Switching to the Prescott core favorably affected Celeron processors, which cannot be said about Pentium 4 processors. due to the increase in processor frequency. However, I do not notice something in our overclocking statistics of processors results above or at least about 4 GHz.

Yes, the frequencies of 3.6-3.7 GHz began to appear more often, and that’s it? Weak, very weak… The best processors based on the Northwood core were also capable of such overclocking. Meanwhile, due to economic feasibility, Intel is increasing the production of Prescott processors and it is already difficult to find a processor based on the Northwood core. There are some bright moments in the form of Intel Pentium 4 1.8A or P4 2.0A processors on the D1 stepping Northwood core, which reach an unprecedented frequency of 3.8 GHz, but this is more an exception than a rule. So, unfortunately, there are no overclocker favorites among Intel Pentium 4 processors either, their cost is noticeably higher than that of Athlon XP, although, with successful overclocking, they are able to provide to more performance.

I am completely unaffected by the new Intel LGA775 platform. I believe that in the note «Subjective opinion about modern platforms» I spoke quite fully and definitely. The funny thing is that at that moment I did not even know about all the errors and problems that have accompanied this platform since its release, otherwise the assessment would have been even tougher. Here the situation is much worse than with AMD with its 64-bit processors, because if you wish, no one bothers you to build a system based on AMD Athlon 64 and enjoy sufficiently high performance, but with LGA775 everything is much more complicated.

The only thing you have at your disposal, if you suddenly decide to build a system on a new platform, are processors. They are already on sale, and their cost is at the level of old Socket 478 processors. There are no motherboards, no DDR II memory, no video cards, and if you are lucky and you find something from this list, then the price will be far from desired, but also from the recommended. As a result, you will spend one and a half to two times more money and get about the same speed as on the old proven Socket 478, or even less. Why ask? To top off all the troubles, in addition to get problems with overclocking?

On the other hand, Socket 478 processors have been deprecated, and you may want the most powerful processor available. In this case, at first glance, LGA775 is indispensable, and motherboards based on old i865PE or i875P chipsets, but with a new socket, will come in handy. However, then it’s easier to overclock the existing Socket 478 processor, and I haven’t seen such boards on sale yet, although the manufacturers have announced their release.

Intel is well aware of the unattractiveness of its new platform, it was not without reason that plans were adjusted and the expected profit, which is planned to be received by the end of the year, was reduced. The situation can be corrected by flooding the market with inexpensive boards and processors, switching to faster DDR-2 667 memory. I assure you, work is underway, which is why I lamented that AMD is now unforgivably carelessly wasting time. Another chance to win a larger market share, another such convenient opportunity, Intel may not provide.

So, we can sum up some results of our reasoning.

Socket A AMD processors are no longer able to provide us with sufficient performance, which means they cannot be considered the optimal choice for an overclocker.
64-bit AMD processors also cannot claim such a title due to their low prevalence, a small assortment of motherboards and low overclocking potential, although their speed deserves every praise.
Intel Celeron D processors are better than older Celerons, but still underperforming.

The

Pentium 4 based on the Northwood core is still good, but there is no obvious overclocker hit among them and they are rapidly disappearing from the market.

The

Pentium 4 based on the Prescott core does not live up to expectations yet and overclocks slightly better than the Northwood, but it has a number of shortcomings.
LGA775 is a dead platform that you can ignore until at least next year, and then we’ll see …

Sadly, I can’t name the best processor of today in terms of an overclocker, because such a processor does not exist. Of course, this does not mean that you should refuse to buy a computer. You should just forget about the fan cries of «Get Intel!» or «Get AMD!» and carefully assess their own needs and capabilities. There are many options that will suit you, and the tests we conducted will help you navigate.

Indeed, all my statements about sufficient or insufficient performance are unfounded until they are confirmed by tests. Therefore, I decided to compare the speed of overclocked processors of three main types: AMD Athlon XP, AMD Athlon 64 and Intel Pentium 4. I don’t remember the last time I made such a comparison and the results were interesting to me.

The test systems were similar, here is the configuration of the stand on which the Athlon XP was tested:

Motherboard — Abit NF7, rev. 2.0
Processor — AMD Athlon XP 2300 MHz (Barton, 512 KB cache)
Memory — 2×256 MB PC3500 Kingston HyperX (200 MHz, 2.0-2-2-5)
Video card — PowerColor Radeon X800Pro
Hard Drive — Fujitsu MPG3307AT
Cooler – CoolerMaster HHC-001
Thermal grease — KPT-8
Power Supply — Thermaltake PurePower HPC-420-302 DF(420W)
Operating system — WinXP SP2, Catalyst 4.8, nForce Driver 4.24

This is an AMD Athlon XP 2000+ processor based on the Thorton core from last year. It has an unlocked multiplier, and we enabled the missing 256 KB of cache memory for it by soldering bridges. The processor worked at a frequency of 2300 MHz (200×11.5), and the memory was synchronous with it at minimum timings. And this is how the stand under P4 looked like:

Motherboard — Asus P4P800, rev. 1.02 BIOS 1015
Processor — Intel Pentium 4 [email protected] GHz (Northwood, FSB 300)
Memory — 2×256 MB PC3500 Kingston HyperX (200 MHz, 2. 0-2-2-5)
Video card — PowerColor Radeon X800Pro
Hard Drive — Fujitsu MPG3307AT
Cooler — Zalman CNPS7000A-Cu
Thermal grease — KPT-8
Power Supply — Thermaltake PurePower HPC-420-302 DF(420W)
Operating system — WinXP SP2, Catalyst 4.8

This processor is well known to you because it often takes part in our tests. The Intel Pentium 4 2.4C based on the Northwood core was overclocked to 300 MHz on the bus, the memory with a 3:2 divider ran at 200 MHz with minimum timings, all memory optimizers in the BIOS were enabled.

I didn’t run new benchmarks with the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ processor, but rather used the results obtained from testing the EPoX EP-8HDA3+ motherboard. Here is the system configuration:

Motherboard — EPoX EP-8HDA3+, rev. 1.0, BIOS from 03/24/04
Processor — AMD Athlon 64 2200MHz (ClawHammer)
Memory — 2×256 MB PC3500 Kingston HyperX (220 MHz, 2. 0-3-3-7)
Video card — PowerColor Radeon X800Pro
Hard Drive — Fujitsu MPG3307AT
Cooler — Zalman CNPS7000A-Cu
Thermal grease — KPT-8
Power Supply — Thermaltake PurePower HPC-300-202 (300W)
Operating system — WinXP SP2, Catalyst 4.8, VIA Hyperion 4.53v

I must say that when testing AMD Athlon XP and Intel Pentium 4 processors, I had to install and configure the operating system from scratch, therefore, to speed up testing, I slightly deviated from the established rules. Tests in 3DMark01 and 3DMark03 were performed once, and not three cycles in a row, as usual. But all gaming tests were carried out three times at least. So the results are:

Are you surprised? I am yes. I had no doubt that Athlon XP would be left behind. However, for some reason I thought that an Intel Pentium 4 well overclocked to 3. 6 GHz would outperform the Athlon 64 processor poorly overclocked to 2.2 GHz. Here’s another benchmark for choosing a processor. It turns out that from the point of view of an overclocker, the A64 has no competitors, despite its weak overclocking. Do you know what is the most interesting? Even the non-overclocked AMD Athlon 64 3200+ processor is faster than the Intel Pentium 4 [email protected] GHz in all tests except 3DMark03. So, if you are not going to devote your time to playing 3DMark03, then feel free to choose AMD Athlon 64 and don’t bother with overclocking much — it will still be faster than a heavily overclocked P4, and the same for the money.

Do not forget that the choice of processor is not the only problem that you will face when choosing the optimal computer configuration for you. Choosing a video card is no less difficult. Now, after the announcement of NVIDIA GeForce 6600 video cards, it is obvious that video cards of previous generations have lost their attractiveness in terms of price/performance ratio — their cost is not so low, and their speed is not so great.