Which processor is faster?

**twQ** · 12-11-2009, 05:27 PM

Which one of these will be, for practical uses, faster? I'm not very demanding not any super heavy gaming or anything, and for video encoding I'm patient so even if it is deathly slow I'll live.

[commercial links removed]

Thanks guys,
Tim

**jscheuer1** · 12-11-2009, 05:39 PM

Please list the names of the processors, rather than link to a commercial website. Oh, and if you know those links (which you obviously do), the information you seek should be there. It would be listed as CPU speed, or similar.

**twQ** · 12-11-2009, 05:45 PM

It does list the speed but the clock speed is not the precise measurement of how fast a processor will be in a real life situation. Sorry, I guess the policies have changed when I used to post here those links would have been allowed as far as I was aware.

AMD Athlon 64
Core Lima
Multi-Core Single-Core
Name Athlon 64 LE-1640
Operating Frequency 2.7GHz
L1 Cache 128KB
Manufacturing Tech 65 nm
64 bit Support Yes
Hyper-Transport Support Yes
Virtualization Technology Support No

AMD Sempron LE-1300
Core Sparta
Multi-Core Single-Core
Name Sempron LE-1300
Operating Frequency 2.3GHz
Hyper Transports 800MHz
L1 Cache 128KB
L2 Cache 512KB
Manufacturing Tech 65 nm
64 bit Support Yes
Hyper-Transport Support Yes
Virtualization Technology Support No
Multimedia Instruction MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNOW! Professional

**jscheuer1** · 12-11-2009, 10:50 PM

The admin gives us moderators wide latitude in determining the exact interpretation of policy. We get so much spam to commercial sites. I felt I had to make sure this wasn't a cleverly disguised case of that. I figured that if you were sincere, you wouldn't have a big problem with it, which you didn't. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Anyways, if you cannot go by clock speed, and your requirements aren't (as stated in your original post) all that stringent, both seem like decent processors. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

However, since they are both from the same manufacturer, I think one could go by the clock speed.

That said, there is no 'practical uses'. Everyone uses their computer for different purposes. You have indicated what isn't important to you ('gaming or anything' and 'video encoding'), but not what is. Memory, disk access times, and other factors (as opposed to the CPU) are often a larger factor in determining how fast the machine will go.

What is the typical use you would put the processor to?

**twQ** · 12-12-2009, 12:56 AM

No inconvenience at all. I would use it for some video encoding, not alot and as I said it can be slower. I would do image modification with Paint.NET and Photoshop at times, coding work. Occasional gaming, mostly flash based online games if anything, and streaming music/ripping and tagging my CDs. Mostly it, also the processor would be paired with 2 gigs of DDR2 800 and a standard HDD with 7,200RPM I think. As far as GFX goes I'm undecided. Thank you for your help so far, I appreciate it.

Tim

**djr33** · 12-12-2009, 01:09 AM

Those processors look similar enough to me that it really is irrelevant. If you want to spend twice as much, you may see a noticable change, but even then with that kind of work it won't be that much.
Video encoding and other long term operations might take a while, but they will on even the fastest systems.
Photoshop and graphics work won't be much of an issue for processing power as most processors these days can handle it. The real issue there is RAM and if you plan to do a lot with big images or opening many at the same time you would be better off with more than 2GB. 2 is fine, but I've run into problems with doing big operations on big images. Undo takes up a lot of space, actually, if you do a lot of modifications.

In deciding between the two, I suggest looking up reviews and checking to see if one lasts longer than the other, etc. Speed won't be a huge factor in the difference, so look at other aspects.

Based on stats alone I'd pick the first. 2.7 is bigger than 2.3, and the extra stuff at the bottom of the second makes me think it's a wasted gimmick that won't help you much in the end.

**twQ** · 12-12-2009, 01:14 AM

Thank you both for your help. I'll keep your RAM recommendation in mind when purchasing. Thanks again.

Tim

**jscheuer1** · 12-12-2009, 01:38 AM

One thing that popped into my mind reading the posts since my last one in this thread is the online Flash gaming and streaming video. For that, the bottleneck would be the internet connection. You would want at least 54kbps that never dips below that except for when the network (conditions on the internet) itself has problems. Any modern wireless router should be able to deliver that if the hard line servicing it is capable of at least that speed. In other words, your ISP and the package you get from them would be important here.