Celeron M 390 vs Ryzen 5 1600X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 1600X outperforms Celeron M 390 by a whopping 4417% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 977 | 3327 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.70 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 8.18 | 0.82 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | 11 April 2017 (7 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron M 390 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 400 MHz |
| Multiplier | 36 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.004V-1.292V |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron M 390 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 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 21 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron M 390. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron M 390 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 Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron M 390 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron M 390. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and Celeron M 390.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 24 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.13 | 0.18 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 1 |
| Threads | 12 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 21 Watt |
Ryzen 5 1600X has a 4416.7% higher aggregate performance score, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 390, on the other hand, has 352.4% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 390 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 5 1600X is a desktop processor while Celeron M 390 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
