Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Celeron M 560
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 9 7950X3D outperforms Celeron M 560 by a whopping 11727% 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 | 3328 | 111 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 58.91 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Ryzen 9 |
| Power efficiency | 0.42 | 12.50 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (17 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 560 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.13 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | 64K (per core) |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 2x 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 89 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 47 °C |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | 13,140 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 560 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 560 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512F, FMA3, SHA, XFR2, Precision Boost 2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 560 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 560 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-5200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000) (400 - 2200 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 560 and Ryzen 9 7950X3D.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 24 |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.30 | 35.48 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 120 Watt |
Celeron M 560 has 300% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 9 7950X3D, on the other hand, has a 11726.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 560 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 9 7950X3D is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
