Ryzen 9 5900X vs Celeron 1000M

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.70
Ryzen 9 5900X
2020
12 cores / 24 threads, 105 Watt
25.56
+3551%

Ryzen 9 5900X outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 3551% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2726199
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data31.04
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Ryzen 9
Power efficiency1.8222.20
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Vermeer (Zen3) (2020−2022)
Release date20 January 2013 (11 years ago)8 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X 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 cores2 (Dual-core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads224
Base clock speed1.8 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data37
L1 cache64K (per core)768 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)6 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)64 MB
Chip lithography22 nm7 nm, 12 nm
Die size118 mm22x 74 mm2(CCD) + 125 mm2 (IOD)
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °C95 °C
Number of transistors1,400 million0 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X 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 configuration11
SocketFCPGA988AM4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.286x MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHA, Precision Boost 2
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size32 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s51.196 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors-
Clear Video--
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency1 GHz-
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3-
eDP+-
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+-
CRT+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanes16no 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.


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.

Celeron 1000M 0.70
Ryzen 9 5900X 25.56
+3551%

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.

Celeron 1000M 1069
Ryzen 9 5900X 39115
+3559%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron 1000M 296
Ryzen 9 5900X 2209
+646%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron 1000M 509
Ryzen 9 5900X 11967
+2251%

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.

Celeron 1000M 2480
Ryzen 9 5900X 6828
+175%

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.

Celeron 1000M 4757
Ryzen 9 5900X 52076
+995%

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.

Celeron 1000M 1923
Ryzen 9 5900X 16438
+755%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron 1000M 1
Ryzen 9 5900X 42
+2762%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron 1000M 0.74
Ryzen 9 5900X 3.14
+324%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron 1000M 0.2
Ryzen 9 5900X 21.2
+13150%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron 1000M 8
Ryzen 9 5900X 191
+2150%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron 1000M 47
Ryzen 9 5900X 335
+609%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron 1000M 1285
Ryzen 9 5900X 13361
+940%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.70 25.56
Recency 20 January 2013 8 October 2020
Physical cores 2 12
Threads 2 24
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 105 Watt

Celeron 1000M has 200% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 9 5900X, on the other hand, has a 3551.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 9 5900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron 1000M is a notebook processor while Ryzen 9 5900X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and Ryzen 9 5900X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Ryzen 9 5900X

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 165 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 3649 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 5900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1000M or Ryzen 9 5900X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.