Celeron 925 vs Sempron 145

Celeron 925 vs Sempron 145 Performance Spectrum

Celeron 925

525

0.0%

544

+3.6%

Athlon XP 2200+

Athlon XP 2700+

Mobile Athlon 64 2800+

Athlon 64 3100+

Ryzen 5 PRO 220

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 145 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 145: 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

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Sempron 145 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 544).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Sempron 145 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Sempron 145

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Sempron 145 better than Celeron 925?

Yes. Sempron 145 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 3.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Sempron 145 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.6% 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, Sempron 145 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Sempron 145 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Sempron 145 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 925 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on that older platform.

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 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 925 vs Sempron 145 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 145

The Sempron 145 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 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: 544 points. Launch price was $95.

⚡

Processing Power

The Sempron 145 is built on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Sempron 145's 544 — a 3.6% lead for the Sempron 145. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 0 kB on the Sempron 145.

Feature	Celeron 925	Sempron 145
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	2.8 GHz+22%
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	544+4%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 925) / not specified (Sempron 145). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.