Ultra 7 256V vs Celeron 1000M
Aggregate performance score
Core Ultra 7 256V outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 1776% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2747 | 618 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.81 | 69.98 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Lunar Lake (2024) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | 24 September 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 4 |
| Low Power Efficient-cores | no data | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 37 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V 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 | G2 (988B) | FCBGA2833 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
| Supported AI Software Frameworks | - | OpenVINO™, WindowsML, DirectML, ONNX RT, WebNN |
Security technologies
Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) | Intel Arc Graphics 140V |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.95 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz (HDMI 2.1 TMDS) 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (HDMI2.1 FRL) |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 3840x2400 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.2 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| PCI support | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
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 | 0.67 | 12.57 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.63 | 13.27 |
| Recency | 20 January 2013 | 24 September 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ultra 7 256V has a 1776.1% higher aggregate performance score, 2006.3% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 11 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 633.3% more advanced lithography process, and 105.9% lower power consumption.
The Core Ultra 7 256V is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and Core Ultra 7 256V, 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.
