Celeron Dual-Core T1600 vs Core i7-3540M
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Core i7-3540M
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is positioned at rank 880 and the Core i7-3540M is on rank 81, so the Core i7-3540M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Performance Per Dollar Core i7-3540M
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Core i7-3540M |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($150) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Merom (2006−2008) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Core i7-3540M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($150) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i7-3540M
Celeron Dual-Core T1600
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Merom (2006−2008) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.66 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 3,000 points. Launch price was $69.
Core i7-3540M
The Core i7-3540M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,984 points. Launch price was $349.
Processing Power
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i7-3540M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.66 GHz on the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 versus 3.7 GHz on the Core i7-3540M — a 76.1% clock advantage for the Core i7-3540M. The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the Merom (2006−2008) architecture (65 nm), while the Core i7-3540M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 scores 3,000 against the Core i7-3540M's 2,984 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron Dual-Core T1600.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Core i7-3540M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 1.66 GHz | 3.7 GHz+123% |
| Base Clock | — | 3 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 4 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 65 nm | 22 nm-66% |
| Architecture | Merom (2006−2008) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| PassMark | 3,000 | 2,984 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron Dual-Core T1600 uses the PGA478 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Core i7-3540M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 667 on the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 versus 1600 on the Core i7-3540M — the Core i7-3540M supports 82.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i7-3540M supports up to 32 of RAM compared to 4 — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) vs 16 (Core i7-3540M) — the Core i7-3540M offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: GL40,GM45,GM47,PM45 (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) and HM75,HM76,HM77,QM77,QS77 (Core i7-3540M).
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Core i7-3540M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | PGA478 | PGA988 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 1.1 | PCIe 3.0+173% |
| Max RAM Speed | 667 | 1600+140% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 | 32+700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: false (Celeron Dual-Core T1600) vs true (Core i7-3540M). The Core i7-3540M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4000), while the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron Dual-Core T1600 rivals Pentium T2390; Core i7-3540M rivals AMD A10-5750M.
| Feature | Celeron Dual-Core T1600 | Core i7-3540M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | false | true |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Core i7-3540M
