Celeron 2957U vs A6-5400K
Aggregate performance score
A6-5400K outperforms Celeron 2957U by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2592 | 2832 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 3.40 |
| Architecture codename | Trinity (2012−2013) | Haswell (2013−2015) |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 January 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
A6-5400K 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 246 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on A6-5400K 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FM2 | FCBGA1168 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| FDI | no data | - |
| AMT | no data | 9.5 |
| Matrix Storage | no data | - |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | + |
Security technologies
A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U 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 A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon HD 7540D | Intel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 10 |
| PCI support | no data | - |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Integrated IDE | no data | - |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 4 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no 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.
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 | 0.83 | 0.56 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 1 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
A6-5400K has a 48.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron 2957U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
The A6-5400K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2957U in performance tests.
Note that A6-5400K is a desktop processor while Celeron 2957U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between A6-5400K and Celeron 2957U, 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.
