Atom Z540 vs Mobile Sempron SI-40

Atom Z540 vs Mobile Sempron SI-40 Performance Spectrum

Atom Z540

1 / 2

305

0.0%

322

+5.6%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

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 Z540 vs Mobile Sempron SI-40 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 Z540 vs Mobile Sempron SI-40: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z540

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 512W, a 510W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (305 vs 322).

Mobile Sempron SI-40

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌21233.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 2.4W.

Quick Answers

So, is Mobile Sempron SI-40 better than Atom Z540?

Yes. Mobile Sempron SI-40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 5.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Mobile Sempron SI-40 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 2757.1% higher max boost clock.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Mobile Sempron SI-40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Mobile Sempron SI-40 still makes the most sense overall. Mobile Sempron SI-40 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 5.6% higher PassMark.

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

Mobile Sempron SI-40 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Atom Z540 vs Mobile Sempron SI-40 Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z540

The Atom Z540 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 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PBGA441. Thermal design power (TDP): 2.4 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 305 points. Launch price was $160.

Mobile Sempron SI-40

The Mobile Sempron SI-40 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 July 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Sable (2008−2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 322 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z540 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, matching the Mobile Sempron SI-40's 1 cores. Boost clocks reach 0.07 GHz on the Atom Z540 versus 2 GHz on the Mobile Sempron SI-40 — a 186.5% clock advantage for the Mobile Sempron SI-40. The Atom Z540 uses the Silverthorne (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Mobile Sempron SI-40 uses Sable (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z540 scores 305 against the Mobile Sempron SI-40's 322 — a 5.4% lead for the Mobile Sempron SI-40.

Feature	Atom Z540	Mobile Sempron SI-40
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	1 / 1
Boost Clock	0.07 GHz	2 GHz+2757%
Base Clock	1.86 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	45 nm-31%	65 nm
Architecture	Silverthorne (2008−2010)	Sable (2008−2009)
PassMark	305	322+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z540 uses the PBGA441 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Mobile Sempron SI-40 uses S1g2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.