Celeron M U3400 vs Ryzen 5 1400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking1152not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.26no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5Intel Celeron M
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Arrandale (2010−2011)
Release date16 March 2017 (7 years ago)24 May 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169no data
Current price$80 (0.5x MSRP)no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed3.2 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz1.06 GHz
Bus support4 × 8 GT/s2500 MHz
L1 cache384 KBno data
L2 cache2 MB512 KB
L3 cache8 MB (shared)2 MB
Chip lithography14 nm32 nm
Die size213 mm281+114 mm2
Number of transistors4800 Million382+177 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketAM4BGA1288
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt18 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI+no data
AVX+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoringno data+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+no data
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes20no 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.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Ryzen 5 1400 4205
+249%
Celeron M U3400 1205

Ryzen 5 1400 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by 249% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Ryzen 5 1400 17557
+658%
Celeron M U3400 2317

Ryzen 5 1400 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by 658% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Ryzen 5 1400 6437
+551%
Celeron M U3400 988

Ryzen 5 1400 outperforms Celeron M U3400 by 551% in 3DMark06 CPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 18%

Ryzen 5 1400 7.8
+697%
Celeron M U3400 62.2

Celeron M U3400 outperforms Ryzen 5 1400 by 697% in wPrime 32.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 16 March 2017 24 May 2010
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 18 Watt

We couldn't decide between Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Ryzen 5 1400 is a desktop processor while Celeron M U3400 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M U3400, 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.


AMD Ryzen 5 1400
Ryzen 5 1400
Intel Celeron M U3400
Celeron M U3400

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.


4 702 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 4 votes

Rate Celeron M U3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1400 or Celeron M U3400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.