Celeron 1000M vs Ryzen 5 1600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.88
+1042%
Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.69

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 1042% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9482729
Place by popularity44not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.36no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5Intel Celeron
Power efficiency11.261.83
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
Release date16 March 2017 (7 years ago)20 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219$86

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads122
Base clock speed3.2 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s5 GT/s
Multiplier32no data
L1 cache576 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache3 MB256K (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)2 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Die size213 mm2118 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data105 °C
Number of transistors4800 Million1,400 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4FCPGA988
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
My WiFino data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FDIno data+
Fast Memory Accessno data+

Security technologies

Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size64 GB32 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s25.6 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors
Clear Video--
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency-1 GHz
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported-3
eDP-+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
SDVO-+
CRT-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes2016

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 7.88
+1042%
Celeron 1000M 0.69

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 12279
+1049%
Celeron 1000M 1069

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 1083
+266%
Celeron 1000M 296

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 4635
+811%
Celeron 1000M 509

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 4538
+83%
Celeron 1000M 2480

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 25970
+446%
Celeron 1000M 4757

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 8244
+329%
Celeron 1000M 1923

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.85
+508%
Celeron 1000M 41.63

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 13
+761%
Celeron 1000M 1

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 1.65
+123%
Celeron 1000M 0.74

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.4
+3900%
Celeron 1000M 0.2

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Ryzen 5 1600 69
+709%
Celeron 1000M 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Ryzen 5 1600 177
+275%
Celeron 1000M 47

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Ryzen 5 1600 3430
+167%
Celeron 1000M 1285

Geekbench 2

Ryzen 5 1600 16217
+376%
Celeron 1000M 3405

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.88 0.69
Recency 16 March 2017 20 January 2013
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 12 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 5 1600 has a 1042% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron 1000M, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 1600 is a desktop processor while Celeron 1000M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and Celeron 1000M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600
Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 5748 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 166 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1600 or Celeron 1000M, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.