Sempron 3500+ vs Celeron M 540
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M 540 outperforms Sempron 3500+ by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3294 | 3548 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.44 | 0.09 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Palermo (2001−2005) |
| Release date | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 1 October 2005 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $167 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 540 and Sempron 3500+ 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 | 1.86 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 256 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | no data | 103 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 63 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 540 and Sempron 3500+ 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | 939 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 62 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 540 and Sempron 3500+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.31 | 0.13 |
| Recency | 1 October 2007 | 1 October 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 62 Watt |
Celeron M 540 has a 138.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 106.7% lower power consumption.
The Intel Celeron M 540 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Sempron 3500+ in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 540 is a notebook processor while Sempron 3500+ is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
