i7-10700F vs Celeron 925
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-10700F outperforms Celeron 925 by a whopping 3340% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3100 | 747 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.81 | 7.81 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | 1 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 30 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F 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 | no data | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FCLGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F. 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) | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F 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 925 and Core i7-10700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 45.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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 | 0.30 | 10.32 |
| Recency | 1 January 2011 | 30 April 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron 925 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
i7-10700F, on the other hand, has a 3340% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Core i7-10700F is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 925 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 925 is a notebook processor while Core i7-10700F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 925 and Core i7-10700F, 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.
