Athlon II Neo K145 vs Celeron M 540
Aggregate performance score
Celeron M 540 outperforms Athlon II Neo K145 by an impressive 79% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 540 and Athlon II Neo K145 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3074 | 3255 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD Athlon II Neo |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 1.51 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Nile (2010) |
| Release date | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 15 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 540 and Athlon II Neo K145 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 | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 540 and Athlon II Neo K145 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.
| Socket | no data | S1 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 12 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 540 and Athlon II Neo K145. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, 3dDNow!, SSE4A, AMD64, Enhanced Virus Protection, Virtualization |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 540 and Athlon II Neo K145 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 540 and Athlon II Neo K145. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 0.19 |
| Recency | 1 October 2007 | 15 December 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 12 Watt |
Celeron M 540 has a 78.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Athlon II Neo K145, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The Celeron M 540 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II Neo K145 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 540 and Athlon II Neo K145, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
