Celeron J1750 vs Sempron 130

Celeron J1750 vs Sempron 130 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J1750

2 / 2

505

+3.5%

488

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 J1750 vs Sempron 130 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 J1750 vs Sempron 130: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.3% higher average FPS across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 45W, a 44W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Sempron 130 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Sempron 130

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron J1750 across 38 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (488 vs 505).
❌4400% higher power demand at 45W vs 1W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1750 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than Sempron 130?

Yes. Celeron J1750 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.3% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3.5% 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 J1750 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.3% more average FPS across 38 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J1750 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J1750 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.3% average FPS lead across 38 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J1750 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron J1750 vs Sempron 130 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J1750

The Celeron J1750 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

Sempron 130

The Sempron 130 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 488 points. Launch price was $25.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J1750 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Sempron 130 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron J1750 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 versus 2.6 GHz on the Sempron 130 — a 7.6% clock advantage for the Sempron 130 (base: 2.41 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Celeron J1750 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Sempron 130 uses Sargas (2009−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1750 scores 505 against the Sempron 130's 488 — a 3.4% lead for the Celeron J1750. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1750 vs 0 kB on the Sempron 130.

Feature	Celeron J1750	Sempron 130
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.41 GHz	2.6 GHz+8%
Base Clock	2.41 GHz	2.6 GHz+8%
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Sargas (2009−2011)
PassMark	505+3%	488
Geekbench 6 Single	150	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	250	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1750 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Sempron 130 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J1750	Sempron 130
Socket	FCBGA1170	AM3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J1750) / not specified (Sempron 130). The Celeron J1750 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Sempron 130 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.