I would go with a Sempron IF one of these is true:
1. You want the cheapest best performance you can get
2. This is not a high end system
The XP just has more cache, I think 512 (well actually some have 256 too) where the Semprons have 256. I personally have a duron with 64 cache and it performs flawlessly so I don't have a problem going with less cache. More gigahertz is what you want if anything (for folding of course). But if you find XPs cheaper than Semprons at the same speed I would go with the XP then. I looked around a little and it doesn't seem like the Semprons are much cheaper, if hardly at all, so I would personally get what ever is fastest and cheapest, ignoring both processor type and rating (i.e. 2800+ 3000+).
Does anyone think that the actual speed of the cpu (when comparing only AMD) doesn't contribute to the greatest performance, compared to the ratings and the cache? *erased because I messed up on comparing cpus vs. price* ~~~Semprons do appear cheaper so I would recommend that if it is only for a cheaper system and the price is a big difference for you.
For overall performance, you're going to want the one with the higher rating (IE: 3000+ > 2600+). That extra cache gives it a huge performance boost in most normal applications. From my understanding, if you were just worried about folding, you would want the higher clock speed, because that's what folding@home utilizes.
General users aren't taking a distributed computing project into consideration usually when they're purchasing a processor. That's why AMD came out with the performance ratings. Basically, as usual, the bigger the number, the better the processor performs in overall everyday use.
Comments
1. You want the cheapest best performance you can get
2. This is not a high end system
The XP just has more cache, I think 512 (well actually some have 256 too) where the Semprons have 256. I personally have a duron with 64 cache and it performs flawlessly so I don't have a problem going with less cache. More gigahertz is what you want if anything (for folding of course). But if you find XPs cheaper than Semprons at the same speed I would go with the XP then. I looked around a little and it doesn't seem like the Semprons are much cheaper, if hardly at all, so I would personally get what ever is fastest and cheapest, ignoring both processor type and rating (i.e. 2800+ 3000+).
Does anyone think that the actual speed of the cpu (when comparing only AMD) doesn't contribute to the greatest performance, compared to the ratings and the cache? *erased because I messed up on comparing cpus vs. price* ~~~Semprons do appear cheaper so I would recommend that if it is only for a cheaper system and the price is a big difference for you.
General users aren't taking a distributed computing project into consideration usually when they're purchasing a processor. That's why AMD came out with the performance ratings. Basically, as usual, the bigger the number, the better the processor performs in overall everyday use.