Celeron SU2300 vs Sempron 150

Celeron SU2300 vs Sempron 150 Performance Spectrum

Celeron SU2300

545

0.0%

579

+6.2%

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 SU2300 vs Sempron 150 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 SU2300 vs Sempron 150: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron SU2300

2009

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 579).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Sempron 150 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Sempron 150

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌350% higher power demand at 45W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is Sempron 150 better than Celeron SU2300?

Yes. Sempron 150 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 6.2% 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 150 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 6.2% stronger overall PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Sempron 150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.2% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Sempron 150 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Sempron 150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you 6.2% higher PassMark. Celeron SU2300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

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

Sempron 150 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2009). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron SU2300 vs Sempron 150 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron SU2300

The Celeron SU2300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

Sempron 150

The Sempron 150 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 December 2010 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 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: 579 points. Launch price was $73.

⚡

Processing Power

The Sempron 150 is built on the Sargas (2009−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron SU2300 scores 545 against the Sempron 150's 579 — a 6% lead for the Sempron 150. L3 cache: 1 MB on the Celeron SU2300 vs 0 kB on the Sempron 150.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Sempron 150
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	2.9 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	2.9 GHz+142%
L3 Cache	1 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	—	1 MB (per core)
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	—	Sargas (2009−2011)
PassMark	545	579+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron SU2300 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Sempron 150 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.