Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Celeron Dual-Core SU2300
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX outperforms Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 by a whopping 18062% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3409 | 57 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 6.82 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.07 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (16 years ago) | 14 July 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $134 | $5,500 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 68100% better value for money than Celeron Dual-Core SU2300.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 27 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | BGA956 | sWRX8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 MB | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2, XFR 2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
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.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.26 | 47.22 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 14 July 2020 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 64 |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 Watt | 280 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 has 27900% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX, on the other hand, has a 18061.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core SU2300 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
