Ryzen 7 2700 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 2700 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T1600 by a whopping 1551% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2791 | 776 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.51 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | 1.62 | 14.39 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 667 MHz | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 32 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 143 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 291 Million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | PPGA478 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | 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 Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700.
| 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.61 | 10.07 |
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 19 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T1600 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 2700, on the other hand, has a 1550.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 7 2700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T1600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T1600 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 2700 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T1600 and Ryzen 7 2700, 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.
