Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 vs Celeron M 410
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 outperforms Celeron M 410 by a whopping 17538% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3400 | 521 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD Strix Point (Zen 5/5c, Ryzen AI 3/5/7/9) |
| Power efficiency | 0.28 | 47.66 |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Strix Point (Zen 5) (2024) |
| Release date | no data | 1 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 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 AMD Zen 5 AMD Zen 5c |
| Base clock speed | 1.46 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1.46 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 54 MHz |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 1.0V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 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 | FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 28 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | USB 4, XDNA 2 NPU (50 TOPS), Secure Processor, SMT, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, FMA3, MMX (+), SHA, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A |
| 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 |
Security technologies
Celeron M 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 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 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360. 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 880M |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.08 | 14.11 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 AMD Zen 5 AMD Zen 5c |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 28 Watt |
Celeron M 410 has 3.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360, on the other hand, has a 17537.5% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 410 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 410 and Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360, 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.
