Ryzen 3 7335U vs Celeron T1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 7335U outperforms Celeron T1600 by a whopping 2140% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3067 | 958 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 0.95 | 26.50 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Rembrandt-R (2023) |
| Release date | 1 October 2008 (16 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 208 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 95 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.075V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U 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 | PPGA478 | FP7 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| 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 |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U 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 T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 660M ( - 1800 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 7.84 |
| Recency | 1 October 2008 | 4 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
Ryzen 3 7335U has a 2140% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 3 7335U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron T1600 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T1600 and Ryzen 3 7335U, 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.
