Celeron T1600 vs M 540
Aggregate performance score
Celeron T1600 outperforms Celeron M 540 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 540 and Celeron T1600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3058 | 3050 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | 0.95 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | no data |
| Release date | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 1 October 2008 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 540 and Celeron T1600 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 1 | no data |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.66 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.86 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.075V-1.175V |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 540 and Celeron T1600 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 | no data | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 540 and Celeron T1600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron M 540 and Celeron T1600 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 M 540 and Celeron T1600 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | 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 | 0.34 | 0.35 |
| Recency | 1 October 2007 | 1 October 2008 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron M 540 has 16.7% lower power consumption.
Celeron T1600, on the other hand, has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Celeron M 540 and Celeron T1600.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 540 and Celeron T1600, 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.
