Mobile Sempron 3800+ vs Celeron M 530

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesCeleron MMobile Sempron
Architecture codenameMerom (2006−2008)Sherman (2009)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+ 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Base clock speed1.73 GHzno data
Boost clock speed1.73 GHz2.2 GHz
Bus rate533 MHz800 MHz
L3 cache1 MB L2 Cacheno data
Chip lithography65 nm65 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.95V-1.3Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+ 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.

SocketPBGA479,PPGA478no data
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt31 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+ are enumerated here.

VT-x-no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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.

Celeron M 530 302
Mobile Sempron 3800+ 335
+10.9%

Pros & cons summary


Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 31 Watt

Celeron M 530 has 3.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 530 and Mobile Sempron 3800+, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 M 530
Celeron M 530
AMD Mobile Sempron 3800+
Mobile Sempron 3800+

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

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


2.8 40 votes

Rate Celeron M 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Mobile Sempron 3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 530 or Mobile Sempron 3800+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.