Celeron 807UE vs Sempron 3500+
Primary details
Comparing Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Palermo (2001) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 1 October 2005 (18 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $167 | no data |
| Current price | $25 (0.1x MSRP) | $1043 |
Detailed specifications
Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE 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 cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 1 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 103 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 63 million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE 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.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 939 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| FMA | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1 | DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 1 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 10.662 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron 807UE outperforms Sempron 3500+ by 4% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | 10 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Sempron 3500+ is a desktop processor while Celeron 807UE is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Sempron 3500+ and Celeron 807UE, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
