CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 410 vs 3500+ among all 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

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

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?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, 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 Intel Celeron M 410

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 410

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 65 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0 MB Compared to all cpus, 1 MB l2 cache is just OK
Much more l3 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0 MB/core Compared to all cpus, 3 MB/core l3 cache per core is just OK
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0 MB/core Compared to all cpus, 1 MB/core l2 cache per core is just OK
More l3 cache 3 MB vs 0 MB Compared to all cpus, 3 MB l3 cache is just OK
Lower typical power consumption 21.94W vs 28.44W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 6.5 $/year vs 8.43 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 23.65 $/year vs 30.66 $/year Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Sempron 3500+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 3500+

Report a correction
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1.46 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,385 vs 625 Around 2.2x better geekbench 3 single core score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.66 GHz vs 2.01 GHz More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 1,388 vs 621 Around 2.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.93 GHz vs 1.47 GHz Around 2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 410 vs Sempron 3500+

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron M 410
63.9 MB/s
Sempron 3500+
181.4 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron M 410  vs
Sempron 3500+ 
Clock speed 1.46 GHz 2 GHz
Cores Single core Single core
Socket type
rPGA 988A
478
AM2

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support No No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3

power consumption

TDP 27W 35W
Annual home energy cost 6.5 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 23.65 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 0.92 pt/W 1.35 pt/W
Typical power consumption 21.94W 28.44W

bus

Clock speed 533 MHz 333 MHz

details

Celeron M 410  vs
Sempron 3500+ 
Architecture x86 x86-64
Threads 1 1
L2 cache 1 MB 0 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 0 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 0 MB
L3 cache per core 3 MB/core 0 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.01 GHz 2.66 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.47 GHz 2.93 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.01 GHz 2.66 GHz

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
Intel Celeron M 410
Report a correction
AMD Sempron 3500+
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus