Celeron 2.80 vs Mobile Sempron M100

Celeron 2.80 vs Mobile Sempron M100 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 2.80

1 / 1

428

0.0%

448

+4.7%

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 2.80 vs Mobile Sempron M100 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 2.80 vs Mobile Sempron M100: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.80

2003

Why buy it

✅Draws 73W instead of 512W, a 439W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (428 vs 448).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Mobile Sempron M100 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Mobile Sempron M100

2009

Why buy it

✅+4.7% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌601.4% higher power demand at 512W vs 73W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.80 better than Mobile Sempron M100?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 2.80 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, Mobile Sempron M100 pulls ahead with 4.7% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Mobile Sempron M100 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.7% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.80 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.80 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Mobile Sempron M100 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 4.7% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 M100 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 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 2.80 vs Mobile Sempron M100 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.80

The Celeron 2.80 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: 2.8 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: 428 points. Launch price was $69.

Mobile Sempron M100

The Mobile Sempron M100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 September 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Caspian (2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: S. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 448 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.80 and Mobile Sempron M100 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.8 GHz on the Celeron 2.80 versus 2 GHz on the Mobile Sempron M100 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Celeron 2.80. The Celeron 2.80 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Mobile Sempron M100 uses Caspian (2009) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.80 scores 428 against the Mobile Sempron M100's 448 — a 4.6% lead for the Mobile Sempron M100.

Feature	Celeron 2.80	Mobile Sempron M100
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.8 GHz+40%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	128 kB	512 kB+300%
Process	130 nm	40 nm-69%
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	Caspian (2009)
PassMark	428	448+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 2.80 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Mobile Sempron M100 uses S (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 2.80	Mobile Sempron M100
Socket	PGA478	S
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR1-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 2.80) / not specified (Mobile Sempron M100). Primary use case: Celeron 2.80 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.80 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.