Celeron M P4500 vs Ryzen 5 2500U

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 2500U
2017
4 cores / 8 threads, 15 Watt
4.28
+569%

Ryzen 5 2500U outperforms Celeron M P4500 by a whopping 569% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking13832772
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5Intel Celeron M
Power efficiency26.021.67
Architecture codenameRaven Ridge (2017−2018)Arrandale (2010−2011)
Release date26 October 2017 (7 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$86

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads82
Base clock speed2 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2 GHz1.86 GHz
Bus rateno data2500 MHz
Multiplier20no data
L1 cache384 KB128 KB
L2 cache2 MB512 KB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)2 MB
Chip lithography14 nm32 nm
Die size209.78 mm281+114 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data90 °C
Number of transistors4950 Million382+177 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500 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)no data
SocketFP5PGA988
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400no data
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth38.397 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes12no 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.

Ryzen 5 2500U 4.28
+569%
Celeron M P4500 0.64

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 2500U 4411
+74.1%
Celeron M P4500 2533

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 2500U 15684
+225%
Celeron M P4500 4826

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 2500U 10.23
+263%
Celeron M P4500 37.1

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 2500U 7
+472%
Celeron M P4500 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.28 0.64
Recency 26 October 2017 1 April 2010
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

Ryzen 5 2500U has a 568.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 2500U is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M P4500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 2500U and Celeron M P4500, 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 2500U
Ryzen 5 2500U
Intel Celeron M P4500
Celeron M P4500

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 1122 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2500U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 11 votes

Rate Celeron M P4500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 2500U or Celeron M P4500, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.