Atom Z520 vs Sempron 2400+

Atom Z520 vs Sempron 2400+ Performance Spectrum

Atom Z520

1 / 2

215

0.0%

262

+21.9%

Athlon XP 1600+

Athlon XP 1800+

Ryzen 7 4700GE

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

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.

Atom Z520 vs Sempron 2400+ 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.

Atom Z520 vs Sempron 2400+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z520

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 62W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Sempron 2400+ across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (215 vs 262).

Sempron 2400+

2001

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +40.0% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌3000% higher power demand at 62W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Sempron 2400+ better than Atom Z520?

Yes. Sempron 2400+ is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 40.0% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data and 21.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Sempron 2400+ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 40.0% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Sempron 2400+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 21.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Sempron 2400+ still makes the most sense overall. Sempron 2400+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 40.0% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Atom Z520 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2008 vs 2001). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom Z520 vs Sempron 2400+ Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z520

The Atom Z520 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Silverthorne (2008−2010) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 0.03 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PBGA441. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 215 points. Launch price was $65.

Sempron 2400+

The Sempron 2400+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in Janeiro 2001 (24 years ago). It is based on the Barton (2001−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.67 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 256 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: A. Thermal design power (TDP): 62 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 262 points. Launch price was $27.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z520 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Sempron 2400+'s 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 0.03 GHz on the Atom Z520 versus 1.67 GHz on the Sempron 2400+ — a 192.9% clock advantage for the Sempron 2400+. The Atom Z520 uses the Silverthorne (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Sempron 2400+ uses Barton (2001−2004) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z520 scores 215 against the Sempron 2400+'s 262 — a 19.7% lead for the Sempron 2400+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom Z520	Sempron 2400+
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	0.03 GHz	1.67 GHz+5467%
Base Clock	1.33 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256 kB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	Silverthorne (2008−2010)	Barton (2001−2004)
PassMark	215	262+22%