Celeron M U3400 vs Ryzen 7 1800X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 1800X outperforms Celeron M U3400 by a whopping 3450% 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 | 935 | 3383 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.63 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 4.13 | 0.61 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Arrandale (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 2 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 24 May 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 1800X and Celeron M U3400 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 | 3.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 1.06 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 2500 MHz |
| Multiplier | 36 | no data |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 16384 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 81+114 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 382+177 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 1800X and Celeron M U3400 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 | BGA1288 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1800X and Celeron M U3400. 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 | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| XFR | + | - |
| SenseMI | + | - |
Security technologies
Ryzen 7 1800X and Celeron M U3400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1800X and Celeron M U3400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1800X and Celeron M U3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| 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 1800X and Celeron M U3400.
| 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 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.
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 | 9.23 | 0.26 |
| Recency | 2 March 2017 | 24 May 2010 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 18 Watt |
Ryzen 7 1800X has a 3450% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M U3400, on the other hand, has 427.8% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M U3400 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 7 1800X is a desktop processor while Celeron M U3400 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.
