Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U vs Celeron M 722
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1402 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 26.46 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 1 October 2008 (16 years ago) | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 4950 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | VGA956 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5.5 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U. 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 | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 October 2008 | 26 October 2017 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 15 Watt |
Celeron M 722 has 200% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 722 and Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
