Celeron 867 vs Ryzen 5 PRO 1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 outperforms Celeron 867 by a whopping 1923% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 994 | 3042 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 10.31 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 January 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $134 |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 32 | 13 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867 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) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | Intel BGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867 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 Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | - | 1 GHz |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | - | 2 |
| eDP | - | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | - | + |
| CRT | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 16 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.08 | 0.35 |
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 1 January 2012 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 2 |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 has a 1922.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 867, on the other hand, has 282.4% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 867 in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 867 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 and Celeron 867, 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.
