Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1

    * Pentium, Celeron, Barton, Sempron, Athlon...

    Can someone gimme an idea about the better and the worst processor listed below? Considering an overall performance and also same RAM, clock, etc...

    Athlon - Sempron - Opteron - Barton - Pentium - Pentium HT (i've heard that the HT engine sometimes slows Pentium's performance) - Xeon - Celeron.

    I think they're all that i've saw hehe.

    Edit: To clarify, i want to know it:
    better
    bitbetter
    moreless
    .
    .
    .
    well, it's still a server
    Last edited by Cassianno; 12-21-2004 at 02:19 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,164
    Right lets put them in order, couldn't decide between the Pentiums and the Athlons, very close, but I ranked AMD higher due to the nice price difference.

    Going from worst, to best:

    -Intel Celeron
    -AMD Sempron
    -Intel Pentium
    -AMD Athlon
    -AMD Barton
    -Intel Pentium w/ht
    -Intel Xeon
    -AMD Opteron.


    HTH

    Dan
    █ Dan Kitchen | Technical Director | Razorblue
    █ ddi: (+44) (0)1748 900 680 | e: dkitchen@razorblue.com
    █ UK Intensive Managed Hosting, Clusters and Colocation.
    █ HP Servers, Cisco/Juniper Powered BGP Network (AS15692).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    1,355
    My list:

    - Celeron
    - Sempron
    - Athlon
    - Pentium IV
    - Pentium IV w/HT
    - Barton
    - Xeon
    - Operton

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    398
    Originally posted by HstCreations
    My list:

    - Celeron
    - Sempron
    - Athlon
    - Pentium IV
    - Pentium IV w/HT
    - Barton
    - Xeon
    - Operton

    I agree!!

    AMD Rulez!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    186
    My List (Web server based)

    - Celeron
    - Sempron
    - Athlon
    - Pentium IV w/HT
    - Pentium IV
    - Athlon XP Barton Core
    - Xeon
    - Operton

  6. #6
    Is Barton really better than P4w/HT?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,073
    Originally posted by CISupport
    Is Barton really better than P4w/HT?
    Not really. A Barton 3200+ can't touch a P4 3.2. a 3200+ is more along the lines of a 2.8Ghz p4.

    A lot of the numbering dates back to the old p4's, before the northwood (that the right name?) core, at which point a AXP 1700+ blew the socks off a 1.7Ghz p4

    ~Francisco
    BuyVM - OpenVZ & KVM Based VPS Servers - Chat with us
    - All popular VPN methods supported
    - Affordable offloaded MySQL & DDoS protection
    - 5GB backup space, unmetered private LAN bandwidth & native IPv6 included. All with a strong serving of pony

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    1,355
    IMO the 3200 is only beaten by the P4 Extremes. Stock P4s, even with HT enabled fall short.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    36
    I have both dual xeon 2.8 (HT on) and a dual opteron 242 web server...

    The Opteron smokes the Xeon

  10. #10
    Originally posted by ImaNewb
    The Opteron smokes the Xeon
    Sorry, what do u man? The Opteron is better? Hehehe

    Thanks all guys, i've changed my mind between some processors, the ranks are really good and seems to be the same, Celeron = 0, Opteron = 10 hehe.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    36
    Originally posted by Cassianno
    Sorry, what do u man? The Opteron is better? Hehehe
    It means the CPU runs hotter thus "it smokes"

    Joking

    Opteron is more efficient and faster caching pages, MySQL, etc....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,957
    Isn't the Sempron the same thing as the normal Athlons?? Why the difference in the rankings? From everything I've seen they're basically the same thing, just at different clock speeds. Only difference now is that the Athlon64 is the top of the AMD heap, and they didn't want to use the Athlon name for their "budget" line even though they were basically Athlon chips.
    Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
    VMware Virtual Data Center Platform

    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    5,105
    I think the semperon has less cache than the athlons.

    My list is the same as amlahdi's.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,957
    Originally posted by coolraul
    I think the semperon has less cache than the athlons.

    My list is the same as amlahdi's.
    Sempron has 256k and a typical non-Barton Athlon also has 256k. There is a difference between Sempron and Barton, but if we're using sempron to be different than non-Barton Athlons I don't believe there is a difference. Since Barton and Athlon are listed separately I'm assuming this is the case. I believe some people are just confusing Semprons with Durons or some such thing.
    Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
    VMware Virtual Data Center Platform

    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation

  15. #15
    OOps, i forgot to mention Duron... Or is Sempron the same?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    41
    Sempron replaced the Duron. The comparisons get convoluted above the 2800+ when the architecture changes. Guess that doesn't really matter cause I've only seen hosts offering Socket A based Semprons.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •