Ryzen 7 3700X vs Celeron M 900
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 900 and Ryzen 7 3700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 508 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 18.46 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 20.66 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 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 | no data | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 900 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 | PGA478 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Ryzen 7 3700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and Ryzen 7 3700X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 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.
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 single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
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
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron M 900 has 85.7% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 3700X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 900 and Ryzen 7 3700X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 3700X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 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.
