Celeron M 410 vs Ryzen 7 PRO 1700
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 822 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 13.47 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Yonah (2005−2006) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.46 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.46 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 533 MHz |
| Multiplier | 30 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.0V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410 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) | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 27 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 8 | 1 |
| Threads | 16 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 27 Watt |
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 410, on the other hand, has 140.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron M 410 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Celeron M 410, 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.
