Celeron 925 vs Sempron 140

CPU

GPU

Celeron 925

35 WW2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Sempron 140

1 Cores1 Thrd45 WWMax: 2.7 GHz2009

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 925 vs Sempron 140 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 925

525

+2.3%

513

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 925 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 925 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 925

2011

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 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

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock), unlike Celeron 925.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (513 vs 525).
❌28.6% higher power demand at 45W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 925 better than Sempron 140?

Yes. Celeron 925 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 2.3% 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, Celeron 925 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 2.3% stronger overall PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 925 is the stronger fit. You are getting 2.3% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 925 is the better buy right now. Celeron 925 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 2.3% higher PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 925 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2009). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 925 vs Sempron 140 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 925

The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 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 925 scores 525 against the Sempron 140's 513 — a 2.3% lead for the Celeron 925. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Sempron 140.

Feature	Celeron 925	Sempron 140
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2.7 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	2.7 GHz+17%
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1 MB (per core)
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	—	Sargas (2009−2011)
PassMark	525+2%	513
Geekbench 6 Single	—	292

🧠

Memory & Platform

Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 versus DDR3-1066 on the Sempron 140 — the Celeron 925 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Celeron 925) vs 2 (Sempron 140). Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45 (Celeron 925) and AM3,AM2+ (Sempron 140).

Feature	Celeron 925	Sempron 140
Socket	—	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 925) vs AMD-V (Sempron 140). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget, Sempron 140 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80; Sempron 140 rivals Celeron 420.