Ryzen 3 5125C vs Celeron M 520
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD Cezanne (Zen 3, Ryzen 5000) |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Barcelo (Zen 3) (2022−2023) |
| Release date | no data | 5 May 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 8 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 180 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 10,700 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C 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 | FP6 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| 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 |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C 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 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 2 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen 3 5125C has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 3 5125C, 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.
