Would today's Sempron replace Turion?

I am looking for detailed new Sempron AM1 spec everywhere. But still have not had enough info for this new CPU. It is the same core revision with Turion X2 with 512KB cache.

Sounds like AMD will use Turion to name high end CPU, X2, X4 or whatever.

Old Turion has two specs, ML-35W and MT-25W. But really the new Sempron is 25W. Will it have longer battery life than current X2?

 

Some of them would be capable of comparing with the Turion(Skt 754). I think AMD increased the amount of cache from 128/256K to 256/512K, so the 512K cache Sempron should offer similar performance to a equivalently clocked Turion. The 256K version wont be too far behind either.

As for battery life you will probably get the same or a little bit more in certain situations since Powernow makes sure there wont be any difference.(say a Tuion ML series running at 800MHz@1V & a S1 Sempron running 800MHz@1V would virtually consume the same power. The only difference will be if you run the processor at full speed where there is a dfference in the voltages.

There might be single core Turion64' based on the S1 platform still. There was this news circulating about a Turion64 MK36. Dont know much about them but I would assume they would be clocked higher than the S1 Semprons...
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3362

 

I doubt it will replace the turion. Althought the specs are nice and equivalent. The sempron name as with the celeron name has always been used for budget chips. Its not only the hardware that differs them from other chips but also their instruction sets and how they compute bits. That has the biggest difference overall.

As stated they have been labeled budget chips. So having them replace turion is like having kia replace bmw or audi. No matter how much better you make the kia, the name will always trump that.

 

This is one fact that I don't like yesterday's Sempron. It doesn't allow me to undervolt at 800MHz.

This is the only probable AM1 socket Turion. Others are in 754. And that leads me to think about Sempron replacing Turion single core further.

These bmw and kia are all from same factory. In fact they equip the same core no matter how marketing named.

Don't you guys see there will be roadmap with new Sempron (sherman core), but I don't see a roadmap for turion single core.

 

I know and no matter what you do, even make the sempron a dual core killer cpu with a nice instruction set it wont matter to the public. Yes savvy people will pick up on it as you have and some will follow, but the general market will look at the name and say ewww sempron(even though sempron has never been a dissapointment). Celerons have the same core as the 400mhz Pent M but they have certain things disabled and less cache. No matter how you beef it up the general public will veiw it as they have for several years...a budget processor, and its the general public that pays AMD/intel the most. Not the few entusiast that see past the name.

I foresee it becoming a very nice budget chip but thats it. It will continue to be owned by its name and reputation. Plus if there is going to be no more turion (it didnt seem to do all that well) there will be a new top dog to replace the turion and it wont be sempron.

 

I guess you miss interpret my words. I didn't say Sempron will replace Turion at all. But just replacing Turion single core. Since AMD and Intel are pushing consumers toward 2 cores very hard. I am looking back to single a bit. Still, intel has its core solo. Now what conter part should AMD do? Sounds like Intel may(or may not) give celeron away and replace with solo in my understanding. At least celeron doesn't active much this year.

My point is: if you mostly don't use second core, then why do you choose a future proof dual cores CPU? Why not single core with better GPU? Even video producing won't utilize much second core, will you playing a lot while you are producing your DVD?

I am convinced that heavy gammers and heavy video makers really need dual cores. But would general public doing this a lot?

 

First of all, in the coming months and years, all software will be made for multiple cores, so just cuz I only use IE and Solitare doesnt mean that the second core will go unused. And anyone that uses a computer utilizes the second core. If u open have more than 1 window open, then boom u got a second core used.

Ur right soemwhat that core duo for most pple is wayy overkill, but it can be had for cheap and is obviously more benefitial than a single core, so why not right. Its not like were paying hundreds of dollars premium to have the luxury of a second core, as 700 dollar laptops come with a core duo

 

I think they will soon enough. Im not a heavy gamer or video editor, but with my core duo I have thought many times of how the heck did I get around with a single core?? Granted my habits the same as before I am much relieved with core duo. But now that Im dual core I have changed my habits to more intense. SO I would say I dont need dual core for 10% of my pc use, and actually need it for 90%. But I want it for 100% no matter what.

But I agree there is still a HUGE population of pc and mac users that only word process, surf the web and download itunes. Basically these people will be fine with single core chips and celerons and semprons alike will more then fit the bill. My wife still has a celeron m and she loves it. She has used my current lappy and says its much faster and snappier then hers but she doesnt have a need or care for that extra speed in her day to day tasks. I do also agree that the celerons will go the wayside and the solo will be intels budget chip as EVERYTHING is going dual. Pretty much the days of highend single core chips is over(dont quote me, just a guess). I would venture to say that making a highperformance single core would be a very niche market that wouldnt be worth it at this point in the PC/mac lifecycle. But a decent single core budget chip will fit the bill for starter pc's and budget rigs alike.

 

This effect will not last longer than 2 second, will it? It will, boom, go back to first core after finishing loading. At least, I don't want to pay $120 more just for this 1~2 seconds boom.

Yeah, there will be multicore oriented App or OS in coming years. People also talk about 64-bit computing for years already, any migrating other than Linux?

Should we buy something just because venders teach us so? Or should we pick what we need?

Yeah, I know Sempron is kinda lower end. But what can it do in term of performance? Nobody got a clue based on current reviews.

 

Noones forcing u to do anything, buy whatever ur hear desires. Im just telling u that core duo is not so useless to regular pc users as u make it out to be. U dont like paying extra fine, but dont make assumptions that core duos are wasted and that pple dont want to pay extra for them. Apparently they do, and thats their problem.

As for ur sempron question, its a good processor for basic usage. Dont expect to play high end games or crunch numbers with it, but for everything else its more than fine. Think of it as the amd equivalent to a celeron m in terms of performance.

 

Well, that turns back to the question. If today's Sempron perform as good as old Turion? Any testing result proof or disproof?

 

I would say no, the turion is a better chip. Its not just that 1-2 seconds that you need 2 cores. But say you have a virus scan open and running yet you want to surf or do some work. while the scan or whatever it is is taking one core up you still have a whole other core waiting and can still use your pc as if it wasnt doing the scan. Its more usefull then you think.

The turion like I said will have a slightly better instruction set, no matter what hardware and core the smepron has or will have. On top of that things will be disabled on the sempron. All this will still make the turion a better performer no matter how you slice it. But as I said the sempron has never been a slouch, in fact my little bro uses one to play bf2 will great aplomb. He is able to use default settings on a 2.0 sempron , 1gb ram and x300 (desktop) pcix card without lag(minus the minor thrashing he does).

 

I dont see any reason why it should not...

A 1.6GHz Sempron with 512k cache will be equivalent/slightly faster even than a Turion64 1.6GHz with 512k cache.

The S1 only adds a DDR2 memory controller and virtually there are no improvements over the Skt 754 processors.

 

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say Sempron will replace Turion X2. Infact, X2 will have its target. Virus scanning is just one ocassion, not doing that often. The parallel app algorithm may significantly improve the processing speed. Like I said, if parallel algorithm applied in video producing, then that would be very much helpful, even just cut down 25% of usual time. But look at nowadays dual cores, numbers really doesn't prove the concept. X2 sometimes slower than Turion single, core solo sometimes faster than core duo.

Anyway, the direct comparison of Sempron AM1 vs. Turion ML-xx doesn't exist.

 

Well, the improve comes from two folds(if there is any):
1. S1 Sempron is interfacing upto DDR2-800(at least 667) vs. 754 on DDR-400.
2. S1 spec. as 25W where ML-xx stays in 35W.

Thin & Light doesn't necessary be called "cheap". AMD usually call Turion ML as thin & light in someway.

 

Good benefits but even with those the performance will tend to be similar.
1. Well, as the memory speeds increase then only will we see some difference but it will be just around 1-5% atmost. Just take a look at the desktop AM2's and their improvement over Skt 939's. Hardly made a difference.

2. Older Semprons and Turions run were also available with TDP's of 25W. So, there is no improvement in that front.

3. The only difference that might provide an advantage over Skt 754 Turions is dual channel memory, but again these processors are not known to be bandwidth hungry, so the performance improvement here again might not be too great.