Performance Summary and Final Words
Performance Analysis: The synthetic testing we started off with created more questions than answers. PCMark05 listed the Celeron D 335 as the best performing test bed in both CPU and Memory performance, while 3DMark05's CPU module had the three Semprons in the lead, with the Sempron 3400+ out in front. As we progressed through our battery of tests, all of the other real-world benchmarks reported the Sempron line as being superior to the Celeron D 335 in terms of performance. We're not sure why PCMark05 seems to contradict its counterpart, but in the end, there is no substitute for real world testing. Whether we weigh gaming performance, real-world application testing or video/audio encoding, the Sempron 3400+ didn't skip a beat, returning the best results every time.
With the release of the Sempron 3300+, AMD got a leg up on Intel, delivering the best performing budget CPU at the time. Today, the picture is not as cut-and-dried with the release of the Sempron 3400+. For one, Intel beat AMD to market with the first 64-Bit ready budget processors, delivering a complete 64-Bit budget product line with the Celeron D 351, 346, 341, 336, 331 and 328. In July, AMD updated the current Sempron line to support 64-Bit, cuminating with the introduction of the 3400+ Sempron.
The main advantage of the Sempron 3400+ is backward compatibility, as a simple BIOS update is the only requirement. To take advantage of the Celeron D with 64-Bit support, users will require an Intel 910 based chipset at minimum, raising the upgrade cost considerations for those with older chipsets. Factor in spotty availability of the latest 64-bit enabled Celeron Ds, and the Sempron 3400+ seems to be in a good position to reach a broader market. The Sempron 3400+ processor's price point is attractive as well, weighing in at $134 in 1000 unit lots. This competes well with Intel's fastest 64-Bit Celeron, the 3.20GHz Celeron D 351, which retails for $130 in retail channels and can have additional upgrade costs.