Ryzen 5 3600 vs Celeron M U3600
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 674 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 11 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 25.29 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 18 December 2010 (13 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 3 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600 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 | BGA1288 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 18 December 2010 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 6 |
| Threads | 2 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron M U3600 has 261.1% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 5 3600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M U3600 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 5 3600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M U3600 and Ryzen 5 3600, 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.
