Ryzen 5 3500U vs Celeron 725C
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1326 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 46 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 27.60 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Picasso-U (Zen+) (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 July 2011 (13 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Multiplier | no data | 21 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1.5 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 504 million | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | Intel BGA1023 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 July 2011 | 6 January 2019 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen 5 3500U has an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 13.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 725C and Ryzen 5 3500U, 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.
