The thing that stands out to me is that the Athlon64 has 512KB of L2 cache whereas the Sempron has 256KB of L2 cache. That would make a difference in performance.

Haki26 wrote on 2023-06-03, 21:26:

the sempron 3400+ is actually faster than an athlon64 3200+.

Nope.
First is "Celeron rating", the second - "Pentium rating"

shevalier wrote on 2023-06-04, 04:09:

Haki26 wrote on 2023-06-03, 21:26:

the sempron 3400+ is actually faster than an athlon64 3200+.

Nope.
First is "Celeron rating", the second - "Pentium rating"

That makes sense. The Sempron (and previously Duron) was to the Athlon what the Celeron was to the Pentium, the former having a smaller L2 cache than the latter IIRC.

shevalier wrote on 2023-06-04, 04:09:

Haki26 wrote on 2023-06-03, 21:26:

the sempron 3400+ is actually faster than an athlon64 3200+.

Nope.
First is "Celeron rating", the second - "Pentium rating"

Or if you ask AMD the "Duron rating" and the "Athlon (pre XP) rating" that they for some reason saw fit to adjust when the Intel P4 went to 800 MHz FSB and AMD themselves went from K7 to K8...

P-ratings can only be compared within the same range and same generation CPUs.

AthlonXP 3000+ / Sempron 3000+ / Athlon64 3000+ are different and you can't expect equal performance.

And this cannot be compared with a 3.00Ghz P4 either. An XP3000+ is generally considered slower than a 3.0 P4 while an Athlon64 3000+ is probably slightly faster (iirc. I could be wrong)

In fact, just as an illustration of the differences between the ranges, you can have a look at the Socket A AthlonXP 3200+ VS the Sempron 3300+
These two CPUs are identical. But it's rated 3300 in the sempron range and 3200 in the athlon range.