CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3000+ vs 145 among desktop CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD Sempron 3000+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 3000+

Report a correction
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 70 °C vs 63 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Front view of AMD Sempron 145

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 145

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.13 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 2.8 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 55% higher clock speed
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 882 vs 513 More than 70% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better performance per watt 2.06 pt/W vs 0.6 pt/W Around 3.5x better performance per watt
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core 8x more l2 cache per core
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Lower typical power consumption 36.56W vs 50.38W More than 25% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year vs 14.94 $/year More than 25% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 39.42 $/year vs 54.31 $/year More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Sempron 3000+ vs 145

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Sempron 3000+  vs
145 
Clock speed 1.8 GHz 2.8 GHz
Cores Single core Single core
Socket type
754
AM3
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit No Yes
Has virtualization support No Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
3DNow!
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 62W 45W
Annual home energy cost 14.94 $/year 10.84 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 54.31 $/year 39.42 $/year
Performance per watt 0.6 pt/W 2.06 pt/W
Typical power consumption 50.38W 36.56W

details

Sempron 3000+  vs
145 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 1
L2 cache 0.13 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.13 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 0 MB 0 MB
L3 cache per core 0 MB/core 0 MB/core
Manufacture process 90 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 70°C Unknown - 63°C

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus

Clock speed 200 MHz 2,000 MHz
AMD Sempron 3000+
Report a correction
AMD Sempron 145
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus