(off topic question) AMD Sempron vs. Intel Celeron
shchoi at gmail.com
Wed Nov 16 15:15:51 UTC 2005
I am running a simulation which consumes CPU time almost 99% during
the runtime. (It's a network simulator written in C++.) I compared the
simulation run time with low speed CPU and high speed CPU. It ended up
quite different in its performance. (One ran about 5 days, and the
other rand about 3days.) If I increase simulation time, the actual
time would more differ.
However, I agree that it's going to be energy waste if I micro-analyse
CPUs per CPUs.
I just wondered (and wanted to know) what are the differences between
AMD Sempron and Intel Celeron D processors. (And possibly where did
AMD XP Athlon go? etc etc)
On 11/14/05, Chanchao <custom at freenet.de> wrote:
> Hello Soo-Hyun,
> Friday, November 11, 2005, 9:22:48 PM, you wrote:
> SHC> I've always built my PC with AMD XP (something between 2400+ to
> SHC> 2800+). I have looked for a website to buy one of these, but realised
> SHC> that AMD seems to change its product line from XP to Sempron. So, I
> SHC> have looked for Intel Cerelon D processors to compare with AMD
> SHC> Sempron.
> Well, in my humble opinion it's wasted energy to go micro-analyze
> CPU's for general use.. Just get whatever's in the sweet spot price :
> performance wise and 6 months later the difference between your
> current most highest-end choice and your bottommest-end choice will
> seem completely insignificant.
> Also keep in mind that not a lot of typical computer use is
> CPU-intensive, and the CPU is not the most likely thing to be the
> bottle-neck in making a system feel 'slow'.
> They're just CPU's; If you want to spend some time pondering
> something then I'd make sure I'd get a gfx card that Ubuntu likes but
> that's not over-qualified with 3D power you won't use.
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
More information about the ubuntu-users