$298 Compaq laptop @ Wal-Mart.

[madhatter256]

All I know is that Sempron will be on 100% load running Vista Basic and all the other crapware that's on it (Norton, CyberMedia). I think for $100 you can get a dual core turion that's faster than the single core sempron.

 

[CharlieCS]

All I know is that Sempron will be on 100% load running Vista Basic and all the other crapware that's on it (Norton, CyberMedia). .

No?

With nvidia GPU this better then any atom platform , and Sepmron will jug along just fine with all the crapware mentioned .Here some detailed info on the chip , although there is a mistake 667 mhz ddr2 not 333 mhz

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Mobile Sempron SI-42 - SMSI42SAM12GG.html

essentially it's a brisbane core with lesser imc, pretty good for 300 $ .

 

[Pinky]

All I know is that Sempron will be on 100% load running Vista Basic and all the other crapware that's on it (Norton, CyberMedia). I think for $100 you can get a dual core turion that's faster than the single core sempron.

Sempron = Celeron for the intel fanboys out there. Frankly, it's the **** software/bloatware they load on these things to offset the lower sticker price (that needs to be immediately uninstalled) that will slow it down, and namely just because it wastes RAM. We don't need to be hating this laptop deal because it's damn good for a budget machine and won't have any problem running any OS out there. It won't do complex computing like Photoshop quickly, and won't game well, but anyone needing this for complex computing tasks would already know that and be looking elsewhere (likely spending much more).

I like the 1GHZ 12.8W consumption when it's just sipping power/idling. That's a decent power to processing ratio if you think back a few years when 1GHZ required a lot more power to achieve .

 

[SteveLord]

I've found very little on this particular CPU...as I too wanted to know more about it with regards to performance.

 

[Pinky]

I've found very little on this particular CPU...as I too wanted to know more about it with regards to performance.

It's comparable to a Barton from the older Athlon days, or a 2.4 Celeron. 4 year old technology is apparently still good enough for laptop use. My main PC is over 2 years old now, fwiw. And I can still play all the latest games at medium or higher settings. These processors sip power which is their main benefit. The fact you can get anything done with them is secondary.

 

[CharlieCS]

It's comparable to a Barton from the older Athlon days, or a 2.4 Celeron. 4 year old technology is apparently still good enough for laptop use. My main PC is over 2 years old now, fwiw. And I can still play all the latest games at medium or higher settings. These processors sip power which is their main benefit. The fact you can get anything done with them is secondary.

This chip is a K8 , it will run circles around a 478 celeron .

 

[Pinky]

This chip is a K8 , it will run circles around a 478 celeron .

I don't think which manufacturing process has anything to do with the actual speed. The newer AMD cpu has the benefit of running at lower voltages and requires less wattage and puts off less heat. Its speed and cache are identical to processors released 3-4 years ago. It's yesterday's processing power repackaged with lower power consumption and cooler operation in mind. A higher clocked 478 Celeron would give this a run for the money, or vice versa depending on which side of the fence you stand. But the Celeron would be putitng out 60Watts (or more?) of heat and require 1.6V (?) versus the ~1.10V the newer AMD proc in question requires at full load.

 

[CharlieCS]

I don't think which manufacturing process has anything to do with the actual speed. The newer AMD cpu has the benefit of running at lower voltages and requires less wattage and puts off less heat. Its speed and cache are identical to processors released 3-4 years ago. It's yesterday's processing power repackaged with lower power consumption and cooler operation in mind. A higher clocked 478 Celeron would give this a run for the money, or vice versa depending on which side of the fence you stand. But the Celeron would be putitng out 60Watts (or more?) of heat and require 1.6V (?) versus the ~1.10V the newer AMD proc in question requires at full load.

K8 is an architecture not manufacturing process lol , AMD architecture does not benefit from larger cache since it uses HT bus instead of FSB . 478 celeron is a cut down P4 , and K8's outran those as well . Clock speed has nothing to do with performance , architecture does . 478 celerons used architecture that employed long pipelines , which made it easy to achive high clocks , the off set was lower performance , thus a k8 clocked at 2 ghz could easily outperform a 3 ghz clocked P4 .

Has nothing to do with what side of the fence am just informing potential buyers .Lower power consumption is of course a good thing and that i agree with , but not the only advantage over a 478 celeron lol .

 

[Pinky]

K8 is an architecture not manufacturing process lol , AMD architecture does not benefit from larger cache since it uses HT bus instead of FSB . 478 celeron is a cut down P4 , and K8's outran those as well . Clock speed has nothing to do with performance , architecture does . 478 celerons used architecture that employed long pipelines , which made it easy to achive high clocks , the off set was lower performance , thus a k8 clocked at 2 ghz could easily outperform a 3 ghz clocked P4 .

Has nothing to do with what side of the fence am just informing potential buyers .Lower power consumption is of course a good thing and that i agree with , but not the only advantage over a 478 celeron lol .

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2004/Sandra-CPU-Dhrystone,449.html

The link has some older procs for comparison. My memory isn't as accurate as I thought, although not a blowout the Celeron would indeed have a tough time keeping up with a Barton of that day. AMD has always obtained more from what seems to be less.

I thank you for lol'ing (a few times) at my misstep. Yes, there are improvements between architectures (caching, memory bandwidth/handling)... but the architectural benefits are augmented by a simultaneous shrinking of the die to achieve increased clock speeds and reduce power consumption/heat. For AMD, having one without the other would have meant a dead end. The point I was originally making was that the processor looked (on paper) like an older CPU. It won't run quite as slow or inefficiently, but it's closer to the expected processing power in 2005 than it is something we would (should?) see in 2009. There's nothing wrong with selling a slower processor for less. It helps, if anything, to move older/slower inventory. And this mobile AMD processor is closer to a 478 Celeron than it is a Q9xxx.

 

[cockyspaniel]

The GPU is what makes this a deal

While the cpu is adequate, the gpu is what makes this thing vista capable.

 

[sulretal]

Funny you guys mention this thing having trouble running vista...

I can run vista fine with a pentium 1.7ghz sonoma chip, 1 gig ram and an x300 vid card.

I can't imagine newer systems (besides netbooks) struggling.

 

[Niku-Sama]

do you have aero enabled?
i doubt