Celeron 2957U vs Pentium B960

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Pentium B960
2011
2 cores / 2 threads
0.63
+12.5%
Celeron 2957U
2014
2 cores / 2 threads
0.56

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 13% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking26362681
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel PentiumIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Haswell (2013−2015)
Release date2 October 2011 (12 years old)1 January 2014 (10 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$134$107
Current price$19.33 (0.1x MSRP)$219 (2x MSRP)

Technical specs

Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U 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 speed2.2 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz1.4 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)128 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)512 KB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)2 MB
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature85 °C100 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U 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
SocketFCPGA988,PGA988FCBGA1168
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI--
FMA+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
TSXno data-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access+no data
SIPPno data-
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching-no data
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data+
FDI+-
Fast Memory Access+no data
AMTno data9.5
Matrix Storageno data-
StatusDiscontinuedDiscontinued
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data+

Security technologies

Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protectionno data-
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d--
VT-x-+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size16 GB16 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.3 GB/s25.6 GB/s
ECC memory support--

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® ProcessorsIntel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Graphics max frequency1.1 GHz1 GHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported23
eDP++
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes1610
PCI supportno data-
USB revisionno data3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Integrated IDEno data-
Number of USB portsno data4
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno data+

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.

Pentium B960 0.63
+12.5%
Celeron 2957U 0.56

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 13% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Pentium B960 966
+12.5%
Celeron 2957U 859

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 12% in Passmark.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Pentium B960 2851
+37.3%
Celeron 2957U 2077

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 37% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Pentium B960 5500
+36%
Celeron 2957U 4043

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 36% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

Pentium B960 33.48
+59.8%
Celeron 2957U 53.5

Celeron 2957U outperforms Pentium B960 by 60% in wPrime 32.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Pentium B960 2
+40%
Celeron 2957U 1

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 40% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Pentium B960 0.86
+38.7%
Celeron 2957U 0.62

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 39% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Pentium B960 0.2
+30.8%
Celeron 2957U 0.1

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 31% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Pentium B960 1367
+29.2%
Celeron 2957U 1058

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 29% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Pentium B960 52
+25.3%
Celeron 2957U 41

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 25% in x264 encoding pass 1.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Pentium B960 9
+22.1%
Celeron 2957U 8

Pentium B960 outperforms Celeron 2957U by 22% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 0.63 0.56
Recency 2 October 2011 1 January 2014
Cost $134 $107
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 15 Watt

The Pentium B960 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2957U in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium B960 and Celeron 2957U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Pentium B960
Pentium B960
Intel Celeron 2957U
Celeron 2957U

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.

User Ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3 421 vote

Rate Intel Pentium B960 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 66 votes

Rate Intel Celeron 2957U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about Pentium B960 or Celeron 2957U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.