Celeron 3215U vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms Celeron 3215U by a whopping 1435% 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 | 919 | 2991 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.55 | 0.05 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 3.24 | 1.76 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| Release date | 31 August 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 June 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has 5000% better value for money than Celeron 3215U.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 38 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 9,600 million | 1300 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U 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) | 1 |
| Socket | SP3r2 | FCBGA1168 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U 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 Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Intel HD Graphics for 5th Generation Intel Processors |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | - | 850 MHz |
| InTru 3D | - | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | - | 3 |
| eDP | - | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | - | 11.2/12 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and Celeron 3215U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 60 | 12 |
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.
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 | 9.52 | 0.62 |
| Recency | 31 August 2017 | 1 June 2015 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has a 1435.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads.
Celeron 3215U, on the other hand, has 733.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 3215U in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is a desktop processor while Celeron 3215U is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
