Ryzen 5 2500X vs Celeron 2.20
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 2500X outperforms Celeron 2.20 by a whopping 6456% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3399 | 1113 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 0.12 | 8.65 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | November 2002 (22 years ago) | 1 October 2018 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 36 |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 478 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
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 | 0.09 | 5.90 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen 5 2500X has a 6455.6% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 12.3% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 5 2500X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2.20 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.20 and Ryzen 5 2500X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
