Ryzen 7 3700X vs Celeron M 520
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Celeron M 520 by a whopping 9360% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3304 | 508 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 18.54 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | 0.47 | 20.66 |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X 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 | 1.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X 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) | 30 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
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 | 0.15 | 14.19 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron M 520 has 116.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 3700X, on the other hand, has a 9360% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 7 3700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 520 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 3700X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 520 and Ryzen 7 3700X, 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.
