Correction: The displayed results are correct for SuperPI, the audio is wrong...don't listen to that geek, usually he doesn't know what he's talking about!

This is a nostalgic CPU. I remember that Intel's Pentium 4 had good performance at the time, so Willamette, Northwood, and Prescott were released in the Pentium 4 series. And Zalman is a company in my country, and at the time they were famous for making really good coolers. Bro, I enjoyed watching the video today too. thank you. (This comment was written through a translator, so the meaning may not be accurate.)

HT was the exact reason I switched from AMD to Intel back in the day. Because at work they had just replaced all the test machines with HT P4s, so I knew first hand what difference those made for the OS response time when one thread fully loaded a logical CPU. And man these HT P4's triggered hundreds of crazy multithreading bugs in our software. So I owe a part of my learning experience to P4 Hyperthreading.

Excellent video my friend! I had almost the same exact setup back in the day. I originally had P4 2.0 Ghz and then upgraded to the Northwood 2.8 Ghz later and got a XFX 7600 GT XXX edition back in 2006. Far Cry maxed out with HDR and the latest version of Pixel shader with the latest Far Cry patch I believe it was 1.33 was the first game I tried when getting the 7600 GT. Far Cry looked stunning with HDR at 1024 x 768 which I believe the resolution I was playing at. I always thought the Athlon XP 2800+ was the better performing CPU. Good to know I got my moneys worth with the better performing CPU. So I didn’t exactly get ripped off. Didn’t know XP 2800+ didn’t support HT. Brought back memories. Great video!

50% load doesn't mean it can do extra stuff. It actually doesn't mean anything without knowing what exactly the thread is doing. If one thread is able to utilize all the execution units in the CPU, there is no sense in trying to load the second one, because you're already using the CPU at its max. Threads will just share execution units, slowing each other. Yes, you can get a better latency, but the throughput will stay the same or even worse. This is the reason Intel is not using HT in E-cores right now: they are simply fully utilized by one thread almost all the time. So, whether or not you could actually benefit from the HT depended on what were you doing.

Great comparison, i like your videos.

The athlon xp would have been a better pick, a 2800+ costs like $15 at most and has 512kb L2. The athlon xp was actually very competitive with pentium 4 specially oced, which was what amd recommended and marketed.

I love the zip tie to the socket 478 heatsink retention bracket. Using a classic cooler there. It's after my own heart... ties and all. +1

Unde ai găsit procesoarele și plăcile? Sunt extrem de greu de găsit, într-o condiție cât de cât ok.

As owner of a Pentium 4 HT 631 and a Celeron 440 I can absolutely confirm the results. Your Sempron has 68% of the clock of your P4. My Celeron has 66% the clock of my P4. Prescott is slower per clock than Northwood. The Pentium 4 can levarage SSE2, while the Sempron has to do with MMX, SSE and 3DNow!, so float heavy tasks that make use of SSE2 instructions can run much faster. Quake 3 is a good example. Stuff that keeps the pipeline filled, like video rendering, also did well on it. But looking at price, the P4 is maybe 10-20% faster for a much higher price. Putting an Athlon XP 2800+ against it will bridge that gap easily and would probably be a better comparison. The 3000+ is where they fell off and the 3200+ can't compete with a 3.2 GHz P4, but at that point we get the Athlon 64 For the $350 battle it would be interesting to see Intel chipsets on AMD and nvidia chipsets on AMD and how much of a different that makes. And maybe an Athlon XP as well.

Die length always gives Thorton/Barton away. Windows XP feels more responsive on my XP 3000+ than it does on a Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz (although neither come close to dual PIII 1000). However due to the laptop's board the P4 only has single channel DDR333 (actually have benchmarks in a spreadsheet of the performance measured by Aida64) and an older 80GB 2.5" IDE HDD instead of DDR400+250GB 2.5" SATAII HDD.

Socket A Sempron were truly amazing price and performance was on point, Socket 939 ones not so much. Great video, and very comprehensive testing

Not bad, not bad. I never had a Sempron i had a Duron 1.2GHz with Riva Vanta 16Mb. This was the best gaming pc for me, the BEST. I even played Half Life 2 on it. In my green times such low end pc was better than my late multi core machine with 1Gb videocard. By the way river is beautiful

K7 Semprons are cool as they're not cut-down cores (those Thortons which is are Barton 256k), only slower-clocked versions of their Athlon XP big brothers.

why Sempron and not Athlon XP?

Hey I would say that you forgot to compare the 400 FSB ones and 533 FSB ones, the 800 FSB Northwood is Socket 754 territory I would say.

0:39 If it is 2004, then why not go with Sempron 3100+ s754 and NForce 3 250 board? It still should be cheaper than P4 combo at that time and Q3 really likes s754/939. ;)

The Barton Semprons are a bit better, lower wattage than the XP Bartons and same L2 cache. Those would be the Sempron 3000+ and 3300+.

Amd Sempron sau Duron erau echivalentul la Intel Celeron. In acea perioada am mers pe AMD Athlon SH pt. ca era mult mai ieftin si avea tehnologia 3DNow! dar aveau o mica, mare problema, daca iti aduci aminte, procesoarele AMD, fiind ieftine, nu aveau capacul de deasupra nucleului precum cele de la Intel si majoritatea celor SH erau ciobite din cauza mainpularii cooler-ului. Baga si un review cu proceasoare AMD ciobite de care toata lumea fugea, ne uitam la ele cu lupa si nu stiu daca este mit sau realitate, cum ca cele ciobite erau terminate si dadeau erori.

Upgrading from a K6-2 to a Palermo Sempron in 2012 (yes, really) was a night and day difference. The supposedly "equivalent" Celerons at mum's work ran way worse.

Oh.... Battle of the Titans

Accentul ala de roman:)))