Celeron M 560 vs Ryzen 7 1700X

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking757not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.15no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7Intel Celeron M
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date22 February 2017 (7 years ago)1 May 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560 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 speed3.4 GHzno data
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz2.13 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/s533 MHz
Multiplier34no data
L1 cache768 KB64 KB
L2 cache4096 KB1 MB
L3 cache16384 KBno data
Chip lithography14 nm65 nm
Die size213 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors4800 Million291 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560 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
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt30 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560. 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+-
XFR+-
SenseMI+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560. 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

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560.

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 1700X 15666
+2828%
Celeron M 560 535

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 7 1700X 4662
+132%
Celeron M 560 2008

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 7 1700X 31950
+1491%
Celeron M 560 2008

Pros & cons summary


Recency 22 February 2017 1 May 2008
Physical cores 8 1
Threads 16 1
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 30 Watt

Ryzen 7 1700X has an age advantage of 8 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron M 560, on the other hand, has 216.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Ryzen 7 1700X is a desktop processor while Celeron M 560 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 1700X and Celeron M 560, 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 1700X
Ryzen 7 1700X
Intel Celeron M 560
Celeron M 560

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.


4.3 723 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 42 votes

Rate Celeron M 560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 1700X or Celeron M 560, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.