Mobile Sempron 3000+ vs Celeron Dual-Core T3500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3500
2010, $80
2 cores / 2 threads, 1 Watt
0.72
+380%

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 outperforms Mobile Sempron 3000+ by a whopping 380% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29013562
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreMobile Sempron
DesignerIntelAMD
Architecture codenamePenryn (2008−2011)Paris
Release date26 September 2010 (15 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$80no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Mobile Sempron 3000+ basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate800 MHz800 MHz
L1 cache128 KBno data
L2 cache1 MBno data
Chip lithography45 nmno data
Die size107 mm2no data
Number of transistors410 Millionno data
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Mobile Sempron 3000+ compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

SocketSocket P PGA478no data
Power consumption (TDP)1 MB256 KB

Security technologies

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Mobile Sempron 3000+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Synthetic benchmarks

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating.

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 0.72
+380%
Mobile Sempron 3000+ 0.15

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 1275
+374%
Samples: 241
Mobile Sempron 3000+ 269
Samples: 36

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.72 0.15
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Power consumption (TDP) 1 Watt 256 Watt

Celeron Dual-Core T3500 has a 380% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 25500% lower power consumption.

The Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Mobile Sempron 3000+ in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Celeron Dual-Core T3500
AMD Mobile Sempron 3000+
Mobile Sempron 3000+

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 112 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 5 votes

Rate Mobile Sempron 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and Mobile Sempron 3000+, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.