Ryzen Embedded 8845HS vs Celeron 667

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Architecture codenameTimnaHawk Point (2024)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)2 April 2024 (less than a year ago)

Detailed specifications

Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS 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 cores1 (Single-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads116
Base clock speedno data3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed0.67 GHz5.1 GHz
L1 cache32 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache128 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography180 nm4 nm
Die size129 mm2178 mm2
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS 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
Socket370SFP8
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt45 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel i752AMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data20

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 8
Threads 1 16
Chip lithography 180 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 45 Watt

Celeron 667 has 50% lower power consumption.

Ryzen Embedded 8845HS, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 4400% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Celeron 667 is a desktop processor while Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 667 and Ryzen Embedded 8845HS, 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 667
Celeron 667
AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS
Ryzen Embedded 8845HS

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Celeron 667 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 4 votes

Rate Ryzen Embedded 8845HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 667 or Ryzen Embedded 8845HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.