Celeron M 540 vs Phenom II X4 N970
Aggregate performance score
Phenom II X4 N970 outperforms Celeron M 540 by a whopping 206% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X4 N970 and Celeron M 540 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2450 | 3073 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | 4x AMD Phenom II | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 2.81 | 1.07 |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 16 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X4 N970 and Celeron M 540 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X4 N970 and Celeron M 540 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 | S1 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
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.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.04 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 16 December 2010 | 1 October 2007 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Phenom II X4 N970 has a 205.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 540, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.
The Phenom II X4 N970 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 540 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X4 N970 and Celeron M 540, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
