Celeron 900 vs Sempron 140

CPU

GPU

Celeron 900

35 WW2009

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Sempron 140

1 Cores1 Thrd45 WWMax: 2.7 GHz2009

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 900 vs Sempron 140 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 900

485

0.0%

513

+5.8%

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 900 vs Sempron 140 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 900 vs Sempron 140: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 900

2009

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 45W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Sempron 140 across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (485 vs 513).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Sempron 140 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Sempron 140.

Sempron 140

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 39 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Celeron 900.

Trade-offs

❌28.6% higher power demand at 45W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Sempron 140 better than Celeron 900?

Yes. Sempron 140 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data, 5.8% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Sempron 140 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.5% more average FPS across 39 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Sempron 140 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.8% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Sempron 140 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Sempron 140 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 39 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 900 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2009 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 140 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Celeron 900 vs Sempron 140 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 900

The Celeron 900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 485 points. Launch price was $69.

Sempron 140

The Sempron 140 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 July 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 513 points. Launch price was $40.

⚡

Processing Power

The Sempron 140 is built on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 900 scores 485 against the Sempron 140's 513 — a 5.6% lead for the Sempron 140. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 220 vs 292, a 28.1% lead for the Sempron 140 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 900 vs 0 kB on the Sempron 140.

Feature	Celeron 900	Sempron 140
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.7 GHz+23%
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1 MB (per core)
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	—	Sargas (2009−2011)
PassMark	485	513+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	220	292+33%
Geekbench 6 Multi	229	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 900 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Sempron 140 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 900 versus DDR3-1066 on the Sempron 140 — the Celeron 900 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Celeron 900) vs 2 (Sempron 140). Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron 900) and AM3,AM2+ (Sempron 140).

Feature	Celeron 900	Sempron 140
Socket	PGA478	AM3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333+25%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Sempron 140 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: No (Celeron 900) vs AMD-V (Sempron 140). Primary use case: Celeron 900 targets Budget, Sempron 140 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 900 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Sempron 140 rivals Celeron 420.