Ryzen 5 7640HS vs Celeron N2830
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 7640HS outperforms Celeron N2830 by a whopping 4179% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3070 | 497 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.60 | 39.37 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Phoenix-HS (Zen 4) (2023) |
| Release date | 23 February 2014 (10 years ago) | January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS 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 | 2.16 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.41 GHz | 5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 178 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | FP8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Ryzen AI, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, FMA3, MMX (+), SHA, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, SSSE3 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| 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 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS 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 N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series | AMD Radeon 760M ( - 2600 MHz) |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 750 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 20 |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 14.55 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 14.90 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 6 |
| Threads | 2 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron N2830 has 400% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 5 7640HS, on the other hand, has a 4179.4% higher aggregate performance score, 1835.1% faster integrated GPU, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 5 7640HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2830 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2830 and Ryzen 5 7640HS, 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.
