Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Sempron 3000+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 3000+

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 90 nm vs 130 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 1.8 GHz vs 1.4 GHz Around 30% higher clock speed
Lower typical power consumption 50.38W vs 66.71W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual commercial energy cost 54.31 $/year vs 71.92 $/year Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 14.94 $/year vs 19.78 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD Opteron 140

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 140

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.13 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core 8x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Sempron 3000+ vs Opteron 140

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Sempron 3000+  vs
Opteron 140 
Clock speed 1.8 GHz 1.4 GHz
Cores Single core Single core
Socket type
754
940

features

Has a NX bit No Yes
Instruction set extensions
MMX
3DNow!
SSE
SSE2

details

Sempron 3000+  vs
Opteron 140 
Threads 1 1
L2 cache 0.13 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.13 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 90 nm 130 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

power consumption

TDP 62W 82.1W
Annual home energy cost 14.94 $/year 19.78 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 54.31 $/year 71.92 $/year
Performance per watt 0.6 pt/W 0.2 pt/W
Typical power consumption 50.38W 66.71W
AMD Sempron 3000+
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 140
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus