Microsoft SQ1 vs Celeron G540
Aggregate performance score
Microsoft SQ1 outperforms Celeron G540 by a whopping 396% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2660 | 1487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Qualcomm Snapdragon |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 0.12 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 495) (2019) |
| Release date | 4 September 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 October 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $158 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 504 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1 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 | no data |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 3000 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 17 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors | Qualcomm Adreno 685 |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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 | 0.74 | 3.67 |
| Recency | 4 September 2011 | 2 October 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 3000 Watt |
Celeron G540 has 4515.4% lower power consumption.
Microsoft SQ1, on the other hand, has a 395.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Microsoft SQ1 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G540 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron G540 is a desktop processor while Microsoft SQ1 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G540 and Microsoft SQ1, 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.
