Celeron 2.40 vs Sempron 3000+

Celeron 2.40 vs Sempron 3000+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2.40

1 / 1

345

0.0%

350

+1.4%

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.

Celeron 2.40 vs Sempron 3000+ 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.

Celeron 2.40 vs Sempron 3000+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.40

2003

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Sempron 3000+.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (345 vs 350).
❌Launch MSRP is still $69 MSRP, while Sempron 3000+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌17.7% higher power demand at 73W vs 62W.

Sempron 3000+

2005

Why buy it

✅+1.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 62W instead of 73W, a 11W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron 2.40.

Quick Answers

So, is Sempron 3000+ better than Celeron 2.40?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.40 is ahead with 33.3% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Sempron 3000+ pulls ahead with 1.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Sempron 3000+ is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Sempron 3000+ is still the much better call for a fresh build. Sempron 3000+ comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $69 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.4% better PassMark. Celeron 2.40 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2003 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Sempron 3000+ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2005 vs 2003) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 2.40 vs Sempron 3000+ Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.40

The Celeron 2.40 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 345 points. Launch price was $69.

Sempron 3000+

The Sempron 3000+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 October 2005 (20 years ago). It is based on the Palermo (2001−2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: 939. Thermal design power (TDP): 62 Watt. Memory support: DDR1. Passmark benchmark score: 350 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.40 and Sempron 3000+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron 2.40 versus 1.8 GHz on the Sempron 3000+ — a 28.6% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.40. The Celeron 2.40 uses the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture (130 nm), while the Sempron 3000+ uses Palermo (2001−2005) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.40 scores 345 against the Sempron 3000+'s 350 — a 1.4% lead for the Sempron 3000+. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	Sempron 3000+
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+33%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	128 kB
Process	130 nm	130 nm
Architecture	NetBurst (2000−2006)	Palermo (2001−2005)
PassMark	345	350+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	150	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.40 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Sempron 3000+ uses 939 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2.40	Sempron 3000+
Socket	PGA478	939
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-333	—
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: None (Celeron 2.40) / not specified (Sempron 3000+). Primary use case: Celeron 2.40 targets Legacy Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.40 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.