Pentium g540: Intel Celeron G540 Specs | TechPowerUp CPU Database

Technologies embedded in the Celeron G540 that improve system security, such as those designed to protect against hacking.

VISTROUSE

VISTROUS0005

(xE.

RAM	DDR3	out of 5200 (Ryzen 5 7600x)
Permissible memory volume	32 GB
Number of memory channels	2	out of 12 (Xeon Platinum 9221)
memory capacity	17 GB/s 9

Peripherals

Celeron G540 supported peripherals and how to connect them.

Tests in the benchmarks

These are the results of Celeron G540 performance tests in non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest processor at the moment.

Overall performance in tests

This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron G540
1.12

• Passmark
• GeekBench 5 Single-Core
• GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.

Benchmark coverage: 69%

Celeron G540
1128

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can be used to accurately measure performance. This version uses only one processor core.

Benchmark coverage: 37%

Celeron G540
416

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application designed as CPU benchmarks that independently recreate certain real world tasks that can accurately measure performance. This version uses all available processor cores.

Benchmark coverage: 37%

Celeron G540
752

Relative capacity

Celeron G540 overall performance compared to its nearest competitor desktop processors.

AMD Athlon II X2 245e
100

Intel Pentium E6500
100

Intel Core 2 Duo E7600
100

Intel Celeron G540
100

Intel Celeron G1820TE
99.11

Intel Celeron G530
99. 11

AMD Athlon II X2 210e
98.21

Competitor from AMD

We believe that the closest equivalent to Celeron G540 from AMD is Athlon II X2 245e, which is approximately equal in speed and lower by 2 positions in our rating.

Athlon II
X2 245e

Compare

Here are some of AMD’s Celeron G540 closest competitors:

AMD Phenom II X2 B53
100.89

AMD Phenom X3 8850
100.89

AMD Athlon II X2 245e
100

Intel Celeron G540
100

AMD Athlon II X2 210e
98.21

AMD Phenom II X2 545
98.21

AMD Phenom II X2 B57
97.32

Other processors

Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.

Core 2
Duo E7600

Compare

Pentium
E6500

Compare

Phenom II
X2 B53

Compare

Phenom X3
8850

Compare

Celeron
G1820TE

Compare

Celeron
G530

Compare

Recommended graphics cards

According to our statistics, these cards are most often used with Celeron G540:

GeForce GT
630

6. 7%

GeForce
210

5%

GeForce GT
710

4.6%

GeForce GT
610

3.6%

UHD
Graphics

3.4%

GeForce GT
440

3.2%

HD
Graphics

3%

GeForce GT
1030

2.7%

HD
Graphics 2000

2.7%

GeForce GTX
550 Ti

2.7%

User rating

Here you can see the evaluation of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.

Tips and comments

Here you can ask a question about the Celeron G540 processor, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Intel Celeron G540 processor for LGA1155

Sandy Bridge for the most economical

When can Intel’s new mainstream platform hit the market? When Celeron is released for it 🙂 Here, LGA1366 and LGA1156 remained unfinished in this regard (although in fact, OEM processors of the indicated family were found in these versions, but not on the open market), and LGA1155 in just nine months gained harmony and completeness. Now the new platform is also suitable for those who do not want to spend more than $ 50 on a processor. Which, by the way, should obviously affect the motherboard market: at first, the motherboard manufacturers had no incentive to produce models priced below $100-150 (because the cheapest processor for such a connector cost more than $150), in the spring the lower bar dropped to 60 dollars, but, obviously, for processors priced at 40-50 bucks — and this is too much. Moreover, competing budget products (for LGA775 or AM3) can be found at 40-45 dollars. However, already a month before the release of the new Celerons, there appeared offers of simple boards based on H61 and with a price of about $55. I would like it to be even cheaper, but even at such a price of boards, the platform becomes attractive in the budget segment itself — if only the performance of new processors turns out to be higher than that of slightly more expensive competitors: this will completely compensate for the higher costs of the board.

Moreover, in terms of functionality, if these budget systems have to blush in front of someone, then only in front of slightly more expensive models based on AMD Llano. The old solutions of Intel itself are easily overlapped in two directions at once. Firstly, full support for PCIe 2.0 in all slots, which provides slightly better expansion options (the same USB 3.0 controller, which cannot fully work in older systems, is no longer exotic). Secondly, although the integrated graphics core is simply called GMA HD, that is, in the same way as in older processors based on the Clarkdale core, it has an improved architecture that came along with the GMA HD 2000/3000, and is generally almost identical to the first one, albeit with discarded «excesses» such as QuickSync. And compared to the GMA X4500HD, the second generation of the GMA HD is certainly a very noticeable step forward. True, as we have already established, even modification 3000 still cannot be considered a full-fledged competitor to discrete video, but in principle, almost all “personal purpose” applications already work on it. This was impossible to say about the first GMA HD due to poor compatibility with gaming applications, the X4500HD is even weaker, and the cheapest motherboards for LGA775 are not manufactured based on the G45 at all, but mainly on the G41 or G31 in general, where there is even no hardware support. There is no acceleration of HD video playback in principle.

In general, in terms of the combination of characteristics, the new budget offer from Intel looks quite attractive. And what does it represent in terms of technical characteristics? There are three processors so far, and one of them is a peculiar thing in itself. The fact is that the Celeron G440 belongs to the class of single-core processors that is already disappearing, and it also operates at a frequency of 1.6 GHz! True, on the other hand, this is the cheapest processor with a TDP of 35W — its wholesale price is only $37. But it’s hard to imagine that many end users would want to buy something so slow at retail, especially since the actual consumption of even a Pentium G only slightly exceeds these very 35 W;) As a result, most motherboard manufacturers did not even endow their devices with support for this » abortion victims.

Just because the Celeron G530 is only $5 more expensive (again, wholesale prices), where there are two cores, and their frequency is already 2. 4 GHz. And by paying $52, you can get another +100 MHz of clock speed in the face of the Celeron G540. Is it worth paying as much as $10 for such a small gain? It seems to us that there will not be so many applicants: in this price segment, such a difference in price is very significant. Moreover, if you pay extra, it’s worth reaching the Pentium G620, where the frequency is another 100 MHz higher, and the cache memory is 3 MiB against 2 MiB in Celeron. And if you save, it is reasonable to stop just at the G530.

In general, as you can easily see, the difference between Celeron and Pentium is gradually smoothing out more and more. Once the amount of cache memory differed four times, then two, and now it has reached one and a half. The number of cores is the same, while within the LGA775 Pentium became dual-core much earlier. Clock frequencies also differ by some 100-200 MHz. Of course, it would be possible to separate the lines a little in terms of memory support (as they did with FSB before), but Intel preferred to limit the Pentium G600 line to the same DDR3-1066. In general, rumors that over time the Celeron line may simply disappear, since Pentiums have long been perceived as budget models (which they are), and it’s getting harder and harder to come up with something weaker — there are grounds . But so far, as we see, this has not happened. But it is very likely that within the framework of the new family Celeron again shines with new colors. Indeed, not all users need the level of performance that more expensive processors demonstrate. It was about 10 years ago that one could wonder whether Celeron would be enough for the office or it’s better not to save money — but now it’s already obvious that it’s enough, and not only for him 🙂 On the contrary, the quality of integrated video is becoming an increasingly important issue as Discrete video cards are disappearing from mass computers, but here it is just close to the maximum offered by Intel. In general, we will not be surprised if the Celeron G530 becomes a real hit of the fall. But first, let’s check what we can expect from the new processors in terms of performance. 2.5 2.6 3.2 3.3 Multiplication 25 26 16

Whom to compare? On the one hand, the processors of the “old” Celeron E3000 line seem to be the most reasonable, on the other hand, it is simply too lazy to deal with them again. Well, really, what else can you squeeze out of the old people? After all, we know for sure that at the same frequency Celeron E3000 is about 10% slower than Pentium E5000. And how does the performance of the new G500s compare with this family? We’ll check it out, putting the new product in a losing position beforehand — the fastest Pentium E5800 in the family will be used as a competitor. However, is she a loser? As we already know, the official replacement for this processor, namely the Pentium G620, keeps up with the faster Pentium E6800. The Celeron G540, on the other hand, differs from the G620 only by 100 MHz and 1 MiB of cache memory, so… It’s very likely that it will be able to please us. Well, we will certainly compare it with the newcomer’s G620 too — it’s interesting what specific increase this extra … eeee … mibibyte can provide 🙂

A rival from the «green» camp is also taken with a margin — Athlon II X2 265. Once upon a time, the cheapest Athlon II X2 215 was enough to compete with Celeron AMD, now times have changed. But is it cardinal? In other words, is it possible to say that the new Intel dual-core processors are definitely better than the Athlon II X2 in their entire market segment? Or are Celeron and Pentium still two big differences? Let’s check it out!

In principle, we can immediately assume what will interfere with the Pentium E5800 the most: within LGA775, the memory frequency cannot exceed the FSB frequency, which automatically limits it to 800 MHz. This is not enough for DDR3, and in general — against the background of modern top processor models that quite officially support DDR3-1333 (or even higher), this is simply nothing. However, the rest of our heroes, by the will of the producers, did not go far from the old man: just one step. But all are equipped with integrated controllers, which has a positive effect on delays, so in this regard, other subjects have a certain head start. In theory. And what is there in practice — tests will help to find out.

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups, and show the average result for a group of tests/applications on the diagrams (for details on the testing methodology, see a separate article). The results on the diagrams are given in points, the performance of the iXBT.com reference test system of the 2011 sample is taken as 100 points. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and the video card (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1280 MB by Palit) are standard for all tests of the «main line» and can only be changed as part of special studies. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are shown both in converted points and in «natural» form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

Changing the versions and composition of applications in the new method did not change the general trend — traditionally low-threaded workload, which is best suited for processors with the Sandy Bridge architecture. And despite the fact that its representatives in our testing operate at frequencies significantly below 3 GHz, and their competitors noticeably exceed this bar, this did not prevent the former from easily «doing away» with the latter. Although, it would seem — Celeron. But it is also more than 10% faster than the not-so-worst Pentium of the earlier series. In fact, if we look at the full results, then the best Pentium for LGA775 in this group lags behind the Celeron G540. So it’s not surprising that Athlon II doesn’t shine anymore. Moreover, professional-purpose packages generally do not like AMD products at times.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

But in the final rendering, the results of Pentium E5800 and Celeron G540 turned out to be the same. But do not forget that the first has a frequency of 3.2 GHz, and the second has only 2.5 GHz! Of course, the G620 is even faster (as we have repeatedly seen, this group of tests is relatively sensitive to cache memory), but it is also more expensive, and this ratio will definitely remain at least until at least one of these processors is removed from production 🙂 And, by the way, the E5800 also occupies a higher price bar. In general, again, nothing to complain about.

Packing and unpacking

The Pentium E5800 is out of competition here (in the bad sense of the word) because of the slow memory. The Athlon II X2 265 loses somewhat due to the separate cache, which cannot be compensated for even by a higher clock speed. Here, with Pentium for LGA775, he could not only fight, but also win if he was lucky, and now Celeron turned out to be faster. The Pentium G620 is even faster, but no one doubted it: we have just those applications where an extra megabyte of cache memory is more than relevant.

Audio encoding

There is a strong feeling that no one has been optimizing audio codecs for five years now — they still work quickly everywhere. Even the traditional formal loss of AMD processors will be imperceptible in practice. If we consider these applications only as a test tool, then we simply state the fact that sometimes architectural improvements do not help — brute force in the form of clock speed is not so inefficient. Even the G620 failed to keep up with the Pentium E5800, let alone the Celeron G540. Yes — and it happens.

Compilation

But more often it’s the other way around 🙂 In this case, the E5800 is the slowest processor. And the reasons are the same as in archiving tests — memory compilers work a lot and greedily. True, the Athlon II X2 265 managed to outperform the new Celeron here. Not the last, it should be noted, time, but given the difference in clock frequency, we would not be surprised if a similar picture was observed more often.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

Because here the frequency did not give anything, but it could! But alas: three of the five applications are the same as in the first diagram, so there is nothing new in their behavior, Sandy Bridge suits them best. Even the youngest or almost the youngest.

Raster graphics

Traditionally «intelophile» group, well related to processors with Core 2 architecture. However, the fact that Corel PhotoImpact, which has not been updated for a long time, has disappeared from the new technique, but GIMP and ImageMagick have been added, has somewhat changed the picture: now Pentium E5800 fails to overtake not only the G620, but also the Celeron G540. Another reason to pass LGA775 in the budget segment.

Vector graphics

But in vector graphics, where both applications we use are generally radically single-threaded, it is still almost on horseback. And in general — for the first time, the Celeron G540 turned out to be the slowest of the four subjects. He lost a little, of course, but he lost. Although with such a spread of results, it would be more correct to consider all today’s participants the same and pay attention primarily to the price.

Video encoding

If, as we have already noticed, it is unlikely that anyone seriously continues to “lick” audio codecs, since audio compression has become too easy for any processor, then the situation with video is diametrically opposite: new versions of software come out with sometimes frightening regularity. And until recently, Athlon II X2 looked the best here (in the budget class, of course), which managed to overtake any Pentium — either E6000 or G6000. But the Pentium G620 managed to catch up with the Athlon II X2 265 within the framework of the previous version of the method, and updating the list of software gave it the opportunity to jump ahead. And Celeron G540 is only slightly slower: in fact, within the difference in clock frequency. No wonder — they have the same architecture. Moreover, it is so successful that the older developments of both Intel and AMD, and a much higher frequency, do not help to compete with it. Here are the additional cores that may well make the situation more interesting, but only in conjunction with the frequency: Athlon II X3 425 in this group, as we already know, is one point behind the Pentium G620, even despite the third core and an additional 100 MHz clock frequency. However, be that as it may, we still continue to argue that for serious work with video, you should get a processor capable of performing at least four computation threads, and it is also desirable that this number be provided by «physical» cores, and extremely it is recommended that these four cores be fast by themselves 🙂 But anyway — for the buyers of budget computers who, thanks to the release of new processors of this class, have received a noticeable (and so necessary in their case) increase in performance in case they sometimes need to recode something, we we can only rejoice.

Office software

We have not yet had a chance to personally communicate with a person who would not have enough Celeron E3000 (or even slower processors within reasonable limits) for the «normal» use of these programs, but still — some kind of increase — that’s no reason to be upset 🙂 The old Celerons were at best only comparable to the equal-frequency Pentium E5000, the new ones noticeably surpass this level. Although the Pentium G620 is even faster, is it worth paying extra when buying an office computer? We also think that this is hardly justified.

Java

Irrespective of the practical scope of complex Java applications in the environment of a «regular» user, we simply state the fact that if earlier Athlon II X2 with such a load type easily defeated competitors in the face of the Pentium E5000 (and was not even inferior to the E6000), not to mention the Celeron E3000, the new Celeron G500 have reached the same level. And the weak susceptibility of the JVM to the cache memory allows the latter to almost keep up with the Pentium G600.

Games

And the times when Athlon II of all modifications could be considered the best budget gaming processors are also, perhaps, in the past. Moreover, despite the fact that the games we use are quite susceptible to the number of computation threads, the Celeron G540 managed not only to convincingly outperform the Athlon II X2 265 (with the same two cores), but also settled between the Athlon II X3 455 and X4 620.

Playback high-definition video

This time we decided to display one of the optional groups, which is quite relevant for the processors in question (which belong to the budget segment). Recall that this test gives as a result the processor load during HD video playback (a fragment of the film «Iron Man», 1920×1080, H.264, average bitrate over 30 Mbps) in two different players, with DXVA support enabled (allows you to use GPU power for decoding) and in pure software decoding mode (only by CPU). In principle, it is software decoding that is more interesting here (which, obviously, loads the processor with more work), and in absolute numbers, but everyone can easily get acquainted with them using the pivot table. And now, just to draw attention to it — a summary result.

What preliminary conclusions can be drawn (since we are only «pricing» on this type of load)? First of all, it’s easy to see that the players still can’t demonstrate any outstanding multithreading support: all the test subjects turned out to be faster than the reference Athlon II X4 620, which means that two cores are quite enough. And enough of them with a large margin: detailed results show that for all subjects, the load does not reach 100% of a single core. Secondly, the performance of the memory system is quite important — it’s not for nothing that the Pentium E5800 turned out to be an outsider. Thirdly, the players are well optimized (which allowed the Pentium G620 to take the first place), but not so much that a higher clock speed could not get around it (Athlon II X2 265 was in the middle between the Celeron G540 and Pentium G620). Well, in general, as expected, everyone copes with the task, and with a solid margin. In general, modern budget processors are far from Atom or Ontario, which have a very difficult time without hardware acceleration 🙂

Total

To many who have reached the conclusion, the enthusiasm above may seem inappropriate: indeed, what kind of records can there be in this market segment? Celeron is not a Pentium in Africa either. And, especially, not Core i7. All this is so. However, from a practical point of view, even small improvements in the cheapest systems are almost more important than the victory of one extreme over another. As a matter of fact, now a person whose budget allowed to acquire only a computer based on Celeron E3500 can now get performance almost at the level of Pentium E6800, which is unlikely to upset him. And those who were satisfied with the speed of the Pentium E5000 line will not be upset that now they can get even a little more, but paying a little less. Moreover, compared to processors of a slightly higher class, the new Celerons look very good: the G540 lags behind the G620 by some 7%, so the gap for the G530 will not exceed 10%, and the wholesale prices of these models differ by as much as one and a half times: The G530 costs 42 dollars, and the G620 costs 64 dollars. It seems to be a trifle, of course, some 20 dollars, but if the entire system unit needs to be crammed into 200, or even 150, the trifle is quite weighty. Integrated graphics (which will probably be actively used in the cheapest systems) in the new Celeron and Pentium are simply the same. In short, there are actually very few differences between the G500 and G600 families — less than between different Core 2 Duo lines, for example. And the fact that the first — Celeron, and the second — Pentium, is only a tribute to the marketing department. Who is simply sorry to «throw away» a trademark, in the promotion of which a lot of money has been invested.

In the previous paragraph, we deliberately focused exclusively on intra-company competition. Why? Yes, in general, the answer is obvious: it is easy to see that now (unlike the sad times of the appearance of the Athlon II X2 215) AMD has simply nothing to oppose to budget Intel processors: the Athlon II X2 line was supposed to compete with the Pentium E5000, and this she quite succeeded (and succeeds), but in comparison with the new generation, both of these families are in the same (unenviable, it should be noted) position.