Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX vs Celeron 2950M
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX outperforms Celeron 2950M by a whopping 2608% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2639 | 260 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 1.98 | 7.10 |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $75 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 40 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCPGA946 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 37 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Security technologies
Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel Processors | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | - |
| eDP | + | - |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| VGA | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 128 |
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.
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
| Performance score | 0.78 | 21.12 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 14 July 2020 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 12 |
| Threads | 2 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 37 Watt | 280 Watt |
Celeron 2950M has 656.8% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX, on the other hand, has a 2607.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2950M in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 2950M is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2950M and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX, 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.
