Athlon 64 3300+ vs Sempron 140

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Sempron 140 Performance Spectrum

Athlon 64 3300+

1 / 1

522

+1.8%

Athlon XP 2200+

Athlon XP 2600+

Mobile Athlon 64 2700+

Athlon 64 3000+

Ryzen 5 PRO 220

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Sempron 140

1 / 1

513

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Sempron 140 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Sempron 140: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon 64 3300+

2004

Why buy it

✅+1.8% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (150 vs 292).
❌Launch MSRP is still $200 MSRP, while Sempron 140 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌97.8% higher power demand at 89W vs 45W.

Sempron 140

2009

Why buy it

✅+94.7% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 45W instead of 89W, a 44W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (513 vs 522).

Quick Answers

So, is Sempron 140 better than Athlon 64 3300+?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Sempron 140 is ahead with a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 3300+ pulls ahead with 1.8% better PassMark.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon 64 3300+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Sempron 140 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Sempron 140 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $200 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Athlon 64 3300+ only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2004 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (2.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on 754.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Sempron 140 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2004). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon 64 3300+ vs Sempron 140 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Athlon 64 3300+

The Athlon 64 3300+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the NewCastle (2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 754. Thermal design power (TDP): 89 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 522 points. Launch price was $149.

Sempron 140

The Sempron 140 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 July 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 513 points. Launch price was $40.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Athlon 64 3300+ and Sempron 140 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus 2.7 GHz on the Sempron 140 — a 11.8% clock advantage for the Sempron 140. The Athlon 64 3300+ uses the NewCastle (2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Sempron 140 uses Sargas (2009−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon 64 3300+ scores 522 against the Sempron 140's 513 — a 1.7% lead for the Athlon 64 3300+. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 150 vs 292, a 64.3% lead for the Sempron 140 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Sempron 140
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.7 GHz+13%
Base Clock	—	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	256 kB	1 MB (per core)+300%
Process	130 nm	45 nm-65%
Architecture	NewCastle (2004)	Sargas (2009−2011)
PassMark	522+2%	513
Geekbench 6 Single	150	292+95%
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon 64 3300+ uses the 754 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Sempron 140 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR1-400 on the Athlon 64 3300+ versus DDR3-1066 on the Sempron 140 — the Sempron 140 supports 166.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Athlon 64 3300+) vs 2 (Sempron 140). Chipset compatibility: VIA K8T800,nForce3 (Athlon 64 3300+) and AM3,AM2+ (Sempron 140).

Feature	Athlon 64 3300+	Sempron 140
Socket	754	AM3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	DDR3-1066+167%
Max RAM Capacity	3 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Sempron 140 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: None (Athlon 64 3300+) vs AMD-V (Sempron 140). Primary use case: Athlon 64 3300+ targets Retro Desktop, Sempron 140 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Sempron 140 rivals Celeron 420.