Celeron 2.60 vs Mobile Sempron 3300+

Celeron 2.60 vs Mobile Sempron 3300+ Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2.60

1 / 1

385

+2.4%

376

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.

Celeron 2.60 vs Mobile Sempron 3300+ 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 2.60 vs Mobile Sempron 3300+: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.60

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 73W instead of 128W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $53 MSRP, while Mobile Sempron 3300+ mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Mobile Sempron 3300+

2005

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.60 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (376 vs 385).
❌75.3% higher power demand at 128W vs 73W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.60 better than Mobile Sempron 3300+?

Yes. Celeron 2.60 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 11.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 2.4% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 2.60 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 11.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2.60 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.4% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.60 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.60 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $53 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 11.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Mobile Sempron 3300+ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2005 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 2.60 vs Mobile Sempron 3300+ Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.60

The Celeron 2.60 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 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: 385 points. Launch price was $69.

Mobile Sempron 3300+

The Mobile Sempron 3300+ is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 June 2005 (20 years ago). It is based on the Roma (2005) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: 745. Thermal design power (TDP): 128 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 376 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.60 and Mobile Sempron 3300+ share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron 2.60 versus 2 GHz on the Mobile Sempron 3300+ — a 26.1% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.60. The Celeron 2.60 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Mobile Sempron 3300+ uses Roma (2005) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.60 scores 385 against the Mobile Sempron 3300+'s 376 — a 2.4% lead for the Celeron 2.60.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Mobile Sempron 3300+
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+30%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	128 kB	128 kB
Process	130 nm	90 nm-31%
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Roma (2005)
PassMark	385+2%	376

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.60 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Mobile Sempron 3300+ uses 745 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Mobile Sempron 3300+
Socket	PGA478	745
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 2.60) / not specified (Mobile Sempron 3300+). Primary use case: Celeron 2.60 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.60 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.