Celeron 2.80 vs Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 689 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Cezanne (Zen 3, Ryzen 5000) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Cezanne U (Zen 3) (2021−2022) | Northwood (2001−2004) |
| Release date | 19 April 2022 (2 years ago) | November 2003 (20 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $70 |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 180 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10,700 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FP6 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 73 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80. 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 | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 8 | no 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.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U outperforms Celeron 2.80 by 8452% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 8 | 1 |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 73 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U is a notebook processor while Celeron 2.80 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U and Celeron 2.80, 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.
