Celeron M 360 vs Ryzen 7 1700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking813not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.25no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7Celeron M
Power efficiency13.58no data
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Dothan (2004−2005)
Release date22 February 2017 (7 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads161
Base clock speed3 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz1.4 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s400 MHz
Multiplier30no data
L1 cache768 KBno data
L2 cache4096 KBno data
L3 cache16384 KB1 MB L2 KB
Chip lithography14 nm90 nm
Die size213 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors4800 Millionno data
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-
VID voltage rangeno data1.26V, 1.004V-1.292V

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360 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
SocketAM4PPGA478, H-PBGA479
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt21 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI+-
FMAFMA3-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data-
PAEno data32 Bit
FSB parityno data-
SenseMI+-

Security technologies

Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4no data
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360.

PCIe versionn/ano data
PCI Express lanes20no 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.

Ryzen 7 1700 14814
+6603%
Celeron M 360 221

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 7 1700 6
+2083%
Celeron M 360 131

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 8 1
Threads 16 1
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 21 Watt

Ryzen 7 1700 has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 360, on the other hand, has 209.5% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor while Celeron M 360 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 1700 and Celeron M 360, 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 7 1700
Ryzen 7 1700
Intel Celeron M 360
Celeron M 360

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.


4.2 1514 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 12 votes

Rate Celeron M 360 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 1700 or Celeron M 360, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.