Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS vs Celeron 2.60
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 386 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 56.68 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Hawk Point (2024) |
| Release date | June 2003 (21 year ago) | 16 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 5.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS 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 | 478 | FP7 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 28 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS. 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 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 780M |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| 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.
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
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 28 Watt |
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, a 3150% more advanced lithography process, and 160.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.60 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.60 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS, 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.
