Ryzen 7 PRO 7840U vs Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840U outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by a whopping 2491% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3066 | 575 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040) |
| Power efficiency | 0.65 | 21.12 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Phoenix (Zen 4) (2023) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (17 years ago) | 3 May 2023 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 PRO 7840U 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 PRO 7840U 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.
| Socket | PPGA478 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 780M ( - 2700 MHz) |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.54 | 13.99 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 3 May 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
Ryzen 7 PRO 7840U has a 2490.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, a 1525% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7840U is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
