0 Comments
| Intel Pentium 4 520 vs AMD Sempron 3100+ |
Released November, 2000
Intel Pentium 4 520
- 2.8 GHz
- Single core
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium 4 520
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 90 nm | ![]() | Significantly higher clock speed 2.8 GHz |
![]() | Significantly more l2 cache 1 MB | ![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core |
VS
Released July, 2004
AMD Sempron 3100+
- 1.8 GHz
- Single core
Reasons to buy the AMD Sempron 3100+
![]() | More advanced architecture x86-64 | ![]() | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes |
![]() | Lower typical power consumption 50.38W | ![]() | Newer Jul, 2004 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much newer manufacturing process | 90 nm | vs | 130 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Significantly higher clock speed | 2.8 GHz | vs | 1.8 GHz | More than 55% higher clock speed | |||
Significantly more l2 cache | 1 MB | vs | 0 MB | Compared to all cpus, 1 MB l2 cache is just OK | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0 MB/core | Compared to all cpus, 1 MB/core l2 cache per core is just OK | |||
| |||||||
More advanced architecture | x86-64 | vs | x86 | A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed | |||
Lower typical power consumption | 50.38W | vs | 68.25W | More than 25% lower typical power consumption | |||
Newer | Jul, 2004 | vs | Nov, 2000 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
Lower annual commercial energy cost | 54.31 $/year | vs | 73.58 $/year | More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Lower annual home energy cost | 14.94 $/year | vs | 20.24 $/year | More than 25% lower annual home energy cost |
Features Key features of the Pentium 4 520 vs Sempron 3100+
clock speed
Pentium 4 520
2.8 GHz
Sempron 3100+
1.8 GHz
L2 cache
Pentium 4 520
1 MB
Sempron 3100+
0 MB
TDP
Pentium 4 520
84W
Sempron 3100+
62W
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium 4 520 | vs | Sempron 3100+ |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 1.8 GHz | |
Cores | Single core | Single core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 775 | |||
754 | |||
features | |||
Has virtualization support | No | No | |
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | No | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 84W | 62W | |
Annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | 14.94 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | 54.31 $/year | |
Typical power consumption | 68.25W | 50.38W | |
bus | |||
Clock speed | 800 MHz | 200 MHz |
details | Pentium 4 520 | vs | Sempron 3100+ |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 1 | 1 | |
L2 cache | 1 MB | 0 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 0 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 90 nm | 130 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 67.7°C | Unknown - 70°C | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | None | None | |
Label | N/A | N/A | |
Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
3DMark06 | N/A | N/A |
Intel Pentium 4 520 ![]() | AMD Sempron 3100+ ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
3100+ vs 3000+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
520 vs 56 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
520 vs 3200+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
520 vs 6010 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$125 | ||
520 vs E7500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
520 vs 2600+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | ||
520 vs E8400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
6600K vs 6700K | ||