Celeron Dual-Core T3100 vs Ryzen 7 1700X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 1700X outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3100 by a whopping 1239% 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 | 967 | 2945 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.02 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | Intel Celeron Dual-Core |
| Power efficiency | 3.96 | 0.80 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 2 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 September 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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 | 3.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 800 MHz |
| Multiplier | 34 | no data |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 16384 KB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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 | BGA479, PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron Dual-Core T3100. 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 | + | - |
| XFR | + | - |
| SenseMI | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron Dual-Core T3100 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron Dual-Core T3100. 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 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron Dual-Core T3100.
| 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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.84 | 0.66 |
| Recency | 2 March 2017 | 1 September 2009 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen 7 1700X has a 1239.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron Dual-Core T3100, on the other hand, has 171.4% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 1700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3100 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 7 1700X is a desktop processor while Celeron Dual-Core T3100 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.
