Celeron 2957U vs i5-3340
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-3340 outperforms Celeron 2957U by a whopping 393% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-3340 and Celeron 2957U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1706 | 2837 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 3.27 | 3.42 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Haswell (2013−2015) |
| Release date | 1 July 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 January 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Core i5-3340 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB Intel® Smart Cache | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-3340 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 | FCLGA1155 | FCBGA1168 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 77 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-3340 and Celeron 2957U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| FDI | + | - |
| AMT | no data | 9.5 |
| Matrix Storage | no data | - |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i5-3340 and Celeron 2957U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-3340 and Celeron 2957U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-3340 and Celeron 2957U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | Intel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | + | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | 1 GHz |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-3340 and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-3340 and Celeron 2957U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 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 | 2.71 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 1 July 2013 | 1 January 2014 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 77 Watt | 15 Watt |
i5-3340 has a 392.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron 2957U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and 413.3% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-3340 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2957U in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-3340 is a desktop processor while Celeron 2957U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-3340 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.
