Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs Ryzen 5 2400G

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 2400G
2018
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.49
+1177%
Celeron Dual-Core T1400
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43

Ryzen 5 2400G outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1400 by a whopping 1177% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking11512959
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.01no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5Intel Celeron Dual-Core
Power efficiency7.991.16
Architecture codenameRaven Ridge (2017−2018)Merom-2M (2008)
Release date12 February 2018 (6 years ago)1 May 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 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 speed3.6 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz1.73 GHz
Bus rateno data533 MHz
Multiplier36no data
L1 cache128K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)512 KB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography14 nm65 nm
Die size210 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors4,950 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 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
SocketAM4P
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelno data
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon RX Vega 11 ( - 1250 MHz)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes12no 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.

Ryzen 5 2400G 5.49
+1177%
Celeron Dual-Core T1400 0.43

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.

Ryzen 5 2400G 21024
+672%
Celeron Dual-Core T1400 2725

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.

Ryzen 5 2400G 6.9
+581%
Celeron Dual-Core T1400 47

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.49 0.43
Recency 12 February 2018 1 May 2008
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 5 2400G has a 1176.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron Dual-Core T1400, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 2400G is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T1400 in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 2400G is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 2400G and Celeron Dual-Core T1400, 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 2400G
Ryzen 5 2400G
Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Celeron Dual-Core T1400

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.


4.1 1446 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2400G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 285 votes

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T1400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 2400G or Celeron Dual-Core T1400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.