Celeron M 530 vs Pentium G840

VS

Aggregate performance score

Pentium G840
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.81
+326%
Celeron M 530
1 core / 1 thread, 30 Watt
0.19

Pentium G840 outperforms Celeron M 530 by a whopping 326% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26043249
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.61no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataCeleron M
Power efficiency1.180.60
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date22 May 2011 (13 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$60no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530 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 cores2 (Dual-core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads21
Base clock speed2.8 GHz1.73 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz1.73 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)no data
L3 cache3 MB (shared)1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature69 °C100 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.95V-1.3V

Compatibility

Information on Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530 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 configuration1no data
SocketFCLGA1155PBGA479,PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+-
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530 are enumerated here.

VT-d-no data
VT-x+-
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processorsno data
Graphics max frequency1.1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

Pentium G840 0.81
+326%
Celeron M 530 0.19

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.

Pentium G840 1294
+328%
Celeron M 530 302

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.81 0.19
Physical cores 2 1
Threads 2 1
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 30 Watt

Pentium G840 has a 326.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 530, on the other hand, has 116.7% lower power consumption.

The Pentium G840 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 530 in performance tests.

Note that Pentium G840 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 530 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium G840 and Celeron M 530, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Pentium G840
Pentium G840
Intel Celeron M 530
Celeron M 530

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.4 198 votes

Rate Pentium G840 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 40 votes

Rate Celeron M 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Pentium G840 or Celeron M 530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.