Ryzen 7 7840HS vs Celeron N2815

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2815
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 7 Watt
0.31
Ryzen 7 7840HS
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
18.20
+5771%

Ryzen 7 7840HS outperforms Celeron N2815 by a whopping 5771% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3106333
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiency3.9149.21
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023)
Release date1 December 2013 (11 years ago)January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS 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 cores2 (Dual-core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads216
Base clock speed1.86 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.13 GHz5.1 GHz
L1 cache112 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache1 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C100 °C
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS 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 configurationno data1
SocketFCBGA1170FP8
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataRyzen AI, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME
AES-NI-+
FMA-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Smart Connect+no data
RST-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1066DDR5
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 SeriesAMD Radeon 780M ( - 2700 MHz)
Graphics max frequency756 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanes420
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no data

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.

Celeron N2815 0.31
Ryzen 7 7840HS 18.20
+5771%

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.

Celeron N2815 492
Ryzen 7 7840HS 28909
+5776%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron N2815 151
Ryzen 7 7840HS 2367
+1468%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron N2815 251
Ryzen 7 7840HS 11010
+4286%

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.

Celeron N2815 1068
Ryzen 7 7840HS 7642
+615%

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.

Celeron N2815 2038
Ryzen 7 7840HS 47933
+2252%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron N2815 57.8
Ryzen 7 7840HS 2.64
+2089%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron N2815 1
Ryzen 7 7840HS 30
+4245%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron N2815 56
Ryzen 7 7840HS 2573
+4536%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2815 33
Ryzen 7 7840HS 279
+757%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2815 0.36
Ryzen 7 7840HS 3.31
+819%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron N2815 0.1
Ryzen 7 7840HS 14.8
+14700%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron N2815 594
Ryzen 7 7840HS 7064
+1089%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron N2815 5
Ryzen 7 7840HS 147
+3138%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron N2815 24
Ryzen 7 7840HS 290
+1102%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 18.20
Integrated graphics card 0.77 18.32
Physical cores 2 8
Threads 2 16
Chip lithography 22 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 35 Watt

Celeron N2815 has 400% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 7 7840HS, on the other hand, has a 5771% higher aggregate performance score, 2279.2% faster integrated GPU, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 7 7840HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2815 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2815 and Ryzen 7 7840HS, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron N2815
Celeron N2815
AMD Ryzen 7 7840HS
Ryzen 7 7840HS

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 40 votes

Rate Celeron N2815 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 1685 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 7840HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2815 or Ryzen 7 7840HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.