Ryzen 9 3900X vs Celeron N2920

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.61
Ryzen 9 3900X
2019
12 cores / 24 threads, 105 Watt
21.10
+3359%

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 3359% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking2753254
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data22.37
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD Ryzen 9
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
Release date1 December 2013 (10 years ago)7 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads424
Base clock speed1.86 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz4.6 GHz
L1 cache224 KB768 KB
L2 cache2 MB6 MB
L3 cache0 KB64 MB
Chip lithography22 nm7 nm, 12 nm
Maximum core temperature105 °C95 °C
Number of transistorsno data19,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1170AM4
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt105 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X. 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
Smart Connect+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data
RST-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X 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 N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size8 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidthno data51.196 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series-
Clear Video HD--
Graphics max frequency844 MHz-
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes4no data
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no 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.


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.

Celeron N2920 0.61
Ryzen 9 3900X 21.10
+3359%

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.

Celeron N2920 950
Ryzen 9 3900X 32630
+3335%

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.

Celeron N2920 1030
Ryzen 9 3900X 6019
+484%

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.

Celeron N2920 3530
Ryzen 9 3900X 45539
+1190%

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.

Celeron N2920 1861
Ryzen 9 3900X 14889
+700%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron N2920 31.99
Ryzen 9 3900X 2.69
+1089%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron N2920 1
Ryzen 9 3900X 34
+2269%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron N2920 119
Ryzen 9 3900X 3049
+2473%

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2920 33
Ryzen 9 3900X 207
+537%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron N2920 0.38
Ryzen 9 3900X 2.36
+521%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron N2920 0.2
Ryzen 9 3900X 10.8
+5019%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron N2920 1728
Ryzen 9 3900X 7534
+336%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron N2920 8
Ryzen 9 3900X 147
+1658%

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron N2920 42
Ryzen 9 3900X 268
+536%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 21.10
Recency 1 December 2013 7 July 2019
Physical cores 4 12
Threads 4 24
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 105 Watt

Celeron N2920 has 1400% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 9 3900X, on the other hand, has a 3359% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 9 3900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron N2920 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 9 3900X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2920 and Ryzen 9 3900X, 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.


Intel Celeron N2920
Celeron N2920
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Ryzen 9 3900X

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.


2.5 32 votes

Rate Celeron N2920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5085 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 3900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2920 or Ryzen 9 3900X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.