Celeron M 900 vs Ryzen 5 1400
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1233 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.66 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 7.11 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 11 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $169 | $70 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 800 MHz |
| Multiplier | 32 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900 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 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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.
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 | 11 April 2017 | 1 April 2009 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen 5 1400 has an age advantage of 8 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 900, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 5 1400 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 900 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1400 and Celeron M 900, 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.
