Ryzen 7 2700X vs Celeron N2840
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Celeron N2840 by a whopping 2878% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3038 | 708 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.39 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | 4.98 | 9.88 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Zen+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 | 2.16 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.58 GHz | 4.35 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X. 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 | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.32 GB/s | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series | - |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 792 MHz | - |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 20 |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no data |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
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.
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.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.37 | 11.02 |
| Recency | 22 May 2014 | 19 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 105 Watt |
Celeron N2840 has 1400% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 2700X, on the other hand, has a 2878.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 83.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 7 2700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2840 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron N2840 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 7 2700X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2840 and Ryzen 7 2700X, 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.
