Celeron M 520 vs B840
Aggregate performance score
Celeron B840 outperforms Celeron M 520 by a whopping 300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2804 | 3320 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 1.63 | 0.48 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 1 July 2011 (13 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | 533 MHz |
| Multiplier | 19 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 504 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.95V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520 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 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | G2 (988B) | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| FMA | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | + | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (650 - 950 MHz) | 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 | 0.60 | 0.15 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
Celeron B840 has a 300% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 520, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.
The Celeron B840 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 520 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B840 and Celeron M 520, 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.
