Phenom II X2 B53 vs Celeron G530

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G530
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.71
Phenom II X2 B53
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 80 Watt
0.72
+1.4%

Phenom II X2 B53 outperforms Celeron G530 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26972690
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.030.85
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Callisto (2009−2010)
Release date4 September 2011 (13 years ago)1 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$50no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.8 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size131 mm2258 mm2
Maximum core temperature69 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million758 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1155AM3
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53 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 G530 and Phenom II X2 B53 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth17 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® ProcessorsOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53.

PCIe version2.02.0

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron G530 0.71
Phenom II X2 B53 0.72
+1.4%

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 G530 1123
Phenom II X2 B53 1137
+1.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.71 0.72
Recency 4 September 2011 1 October 2009
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 80 Watt

Celeron G530 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 23.1% lower power consumption.

Phenom II X2 B53, on the other hand, has a 1.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G530 and Phenom II X2 B53, 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 G530
Celeron G530
AMD Phenom II X2 B53
Phenom II X2 B53

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.


2.8 201 vote

Rate Celeron G530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Phenom II X2 B53 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G530 or Phenom II X2 B53, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.