A noobie need some help :)

[TripleEight]

Hi all! Hope someone could spare a few minutes to answer my question. Many
thanks!

Which is faster for,

1. Games
2. Applications

The,

- Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB
- Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB

Thanks again!

 

[Dee]

Hi all! Hope someone could spare a few minutes to answer my question. Many
thanks!

Which is faster for,

1. Games
2. Applications

The,

- Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB
- Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB

Thanks again!

If you're thinking about building a new system and you want performance
for games, look into an Athlon 64 system. If you're on a tight budget
you can go with a socket 754 system, but the socket 939 is the latest
version and will be the platform of choice for awhile.

 

[Wes Newell]

Which is faster for,

1. Games
2. Applications

- Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB - Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB

The Athlon by a large margin, in both. Now if the Athlon was running at
1.5GHz, the Sempron would have about a 3% overall advantage. See Sempron
in link below.

 

[TripleEight]

| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:24:47 +0000, TripleEight wrote:
|
| > Which is faster for,
| >
| > 1. Games
| > 2. Applications
| >
| > - Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB - Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB
| >
| The Athlon by a large margin, in both. Now if the Athlon was running at
| 1.5GHz, the Sempron would have about a 3% overall advantage. See Sempron
| in link below.
|
| --
| Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
| http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Thanks for the info!

So an Athlon XP running at a lower fbs would still out perform a Sempron with a
higher fsb? :O

 

[TripleEight]

| TripleEight wrote:
|
| > Hi all! Hope someone could spare a few minutes to answer my question. Many
| > thanks!
| >
| > Which is faster for,
| >
| > 1. Games
| > 2. Applications
| >
| > The,
| >
| > - Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB
| > - Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB
| >
| > Thanks again!
| >
|
| If you're thinking about building a new system and you want performance
| for games, look into an Athlon 64 system. If you're on a tight budget
| you can go with a socket 754 system, but the socket 939 is the latest
| version and will be the platform of choice for awhile.
|
|

Thanks for the reply. I just built a PC using mainly spare (old) parts lying
around in my cupboard. With only the CPU that needs buying I am wondering which
of the above CPUs I should buy with both being the cheapest ones around.

 

[Dee]

| TripleEight wrote:
|
| > Hi all! Hope someone could spare a few minutes to answer my question. Many
| > thanks!
| >
| > Which is faster for,
| >
| > 1. Games
| > 2. Applications
| >
| > The,
| >
| > - Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB
| > - Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB
| >
| > Thanks again!
| >
|
| If you're thinking about building a new system and you want performance
| for games, look into an Athlon 64 system. If you're on a tight budget
| you can go with a socket 754 system, but the socket 939 is the latest
| version and will be the platform of choice for awhile.
|
|

Thanks for the reply. I just built a PC using mainly spare (old) parts lying
around in my cupboard. With only the CPU that needs buying I am wondering which
of the above CPUs I should buy with both being the cheapest ones around.

In that case, I would have to recommend the Athlon XP and this is based
on articles and forums, not personal experience.

Supposedly the rating of the Athlon XP is compared to the Pentium 4 and
the rating of the Sempron is compared to the Celeron. So, the Athlon XP
should give a higher overall performance than the Sempron.

 

[Wes Newell]

| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:24:47 +0000, TripleEight wrote:
|
| > Which is faster for,
| >
| > 1. Games
| > 2. Applications
| >
| > - Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB - Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB
| >
| The Athlon by a large margin, in both. Now if the Athlon was running at
| 1.5GHz, the Sempron would have about a 3% overall advantage. See Sempron
| in link below.
Thanks for the info!

So an Athlon XP running at a lower fbs would still out perform a Sempron
with a higher fsb? :O

As long as they are the same model number, yes. Of course a Sempron 2800+
would outperform an Athlon XP 2200+, both at stock speeds. For comparisons
sake, just subtract 400 from the Sempron model number to come up with the
Athlon XP model number that would perform about the same. In this case,
the Sempron 2200+ performs about the same as an 1800+ Athlon XP.

 

[Antoine Leca]

En (e-mail address removed), Wes Newell va
escriure:

See Sempron in link below. ....
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

404 :-(

 

[TripleEight]

| Hi all! Hope someone could spare a few minutes to answer my question. Many
| thanks!
|
| Which is faster for,
|
| 1. Games
| 2. Applications
|
| The,
|
| - Athlon XP 2200+ TBred 1.8GHz 133 FSB
| - Sempron 2200 1.5GHz 166 FSB
|
| Thanks again!

Now that I've got my systemup and running I am now faced with another problem!


I updated all my hardware drivers and tried to load up a game. Upon reaching the
title screen the computer suddenly experiences a power cut and I can't boot up
the system by pressing the power button on the case. The *ONLY* way to switch it
on is to switch off the power supply (like a hard reset) using the switch on it.
Then it would boot up normally.

This problem only happens when I start a game.

I suspect the power supply is going and needs replacing. Anyone had this problem
before? Or know what problem this is related to?

Thanks!!!

 

[Wes Newell]

En (e-mail address removed), Wes Newell va
escriure:

404 :-(

Looks like Verizon did it again. Yep, there was nothing there. Should work
now. I uploaded everything again for the 2nd or 3rd time in as many years.
Looks like they changed server software. Used to be start.htm was default
for site, now it's the standard index.htm.

 

[Antoine Leca]

En (e-mail address removed), Wes Newell va escriure:

Looks like Verizon did it again. Yep, there was nothing there.
Should work now.

Yes.

Thanks.


Antoine