Celeron B860E vs Ryzen 5 3400G
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1126 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 8.47 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) | no data |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 37 | 21 |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 210 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,950 million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E 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) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Integrated graphics card | 5.48 | 0.34 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen 5 3400G has 1511.8% faster integrated GPU, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron B860E, on the other hand, has 85.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen 5 3400G is a desktop processor while Celeron B860E is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 3400G and Celeron B860E, 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.
