Celeron Dual-Core T1400 vs Ryzen 7 1700
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1400 by a whopping 2003% 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 | 991 | 3214 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.29 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 5.47 | 0.48 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Merom-2M (2008) |
| Release date | 2 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 May 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 1700 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.73 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 533 MHz |
| Multiplier | 30 | no data |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 16384 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 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 | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 1700 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | P |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | FMA3 | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| SenseMI | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400. 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 7 1700 and Celeron Dual-Core T1400.
| PCIe version | n/a | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.41 | 0.40 |
| Recency | 2 March 2017 | 1 May 2008 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen 7 1700 has a 2002.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% 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 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1400 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T1400 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.
