Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs Celeron T3000
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 7800X3D outperforms Celeron T3000 by a whopping 4916% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2967 | 249 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 38.31 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 17.00 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Raphael (Zen4) (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 162 MHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 96 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 89 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 6,570 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1V-1.25V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D 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 | PGA478 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D. 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, AVX512, BMI1, BMI2, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT SHA, XFR2, Precision Boost 2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-5200 |
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 T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 24 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.43 | 21.57 |
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 120 Watt |
Celeron T3000 has 242.9% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 7800X3D, on the other hand, has a 4916.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 7 7800X3D is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron T3000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron T3000 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T3000 and Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 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.
