Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX vs Celeron E3400
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 8566% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2829 | 40 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.72 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 0.80 | 16.10 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Chagall PRO (2022) |
| Release date | 17 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 8 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $76 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 36 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 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 | LGA775 | WRX8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX. 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 |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Security technologies
Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 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 Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | 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 E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.56 | 48.53 |
| Recency | 17 January 2010 | 8 March 2022 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 32 |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 280 Watt |
Celeron E3400 has 330.8% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, on the other hand, has a 8566.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3400 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, 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.
