Celeron U3400 vs Sempron 150

Celeron U3400 vs Sempron 150 Performance Spectrum

Celeron U3400

2 / 2

575

0.0%

579

+0.7%

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 U3400 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 U3400 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 U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅Draws 18W instead of 45W, a 27W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (575 vs 579).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Sempron 150 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Sempron 150

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌150% higher power demand at 45W vs 18W.

Quick Answers

So, is Sempron 150 better than Celeron U3400?

Yes. Sempron 150 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Sempron 150 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% 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 150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% 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 $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron U3400 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, especially when the gap is already 1.5% in the shared gaming data.

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

Sempron 150 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Celeron U3400 vs Sempron 150 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron U3400

The Celeron U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.06 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 575 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 Celeron U3400 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Sempron 150 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron U3400 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 0.07 GHz on the Celeron U3400 versus 2.9 GHz on the Sempron 150 — a 190.6% clock advantage for the Sempron 150 (base: 1.06 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Celeron U3400 uses the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Sempron 150 uses Sargas (2009−2011) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron U3400 scores 575 against the Sempron 150's 579 — a 0.7% lead for the Sempron 150. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron U3400 vs 0 kB on the Sempron 150.

Feature	Celeron U3400	Sempron 150
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 1
Boost Clock	0.07 GHz	2.9 GHz+4043%
Base Clock	1.06 GHz	2.9 GHz+174%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Westmere (2010−2011)	Sargas (2009−2011)
PassMark	575	579

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron U3400 uses the BGA1288 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Sempron 150 uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.