Ryzen Embedded 8840U vs Celeron M 350
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Architecture codename | Dothan (2004−2005) | Hawk Point (2024) |
| Release date | no data | 2 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 1.26V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478, H-PBGA479, H-PBGA478, PPGA479 | FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 28 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 780M |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 28 Watt |
Celeron M 350 has 33.3% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Embedded 8840U, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 2150% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 350 and Ryzen Embedded 8840U, 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.
