CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 440 vs 540 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Celeron M 440

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Celeron M 440

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron M 440

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 440

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 980 vs 802.5 More than 20% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.57 GHz vs 1.87 GHz More than 90% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.98 GHz vs 1.87 GHz Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron 540

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 540

Report a correction
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 60.4 °C More than 65% higher Maximum operating temperature
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 1,601 vs 760 More than 2x better geekbench 3 single core score
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 1,600 vs 758 More than 2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Slightly lower typical power consumption 24.38W vs 28.44W Around 15% lower typical power consumption
Newer Jul, 2007 vs Jul, 2006 Release date a year later
Slightly lower annual home energy cost 7.23 $/year vs 8.43 $/year Around 15% lower annual home energy cost
Slightly lower annual commercial energy cost 26.28 $/year vs 30.66 $/year Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 440 vs 540

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron M 440
74,050 MB/s
Celeron 540
137.5 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

3D Mark 06 (CPU)

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron M 440  vs
540 
Clock speed 2 GHz 1.86 GHz
Cores Single core Single core
Socket type
479
LGA 775
M
478

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support No No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No No

power consumption

TDP 35W 30W
Annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year 7.23 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year 26.28 $/year
Performance per watt 1.7 pt/W 1.69 pt/W
Typical power consumption 28.44W 24.38W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 800 MHz 533 MHz

details

Celeron M 440  vs
540 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 1
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 105,000,000 291,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 10 14
Voltage range 1 - 1.34V 0.95 - 1.3V
Operating temperature Unknown - 60.4°C Unknown - 100°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.57 GHz 1.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.98 GHz 1.87 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.57 GHz 1.87 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
Intel Celeron M 440
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 540
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus