Celeron 847E vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X outperforms Celeron 847E by a whopping 5003% 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 | 466 | 3367 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.91 | 0.01 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 3.95 | 0.82 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | no data |
| Architecture codename | ZEN+ (2018−2019) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $111 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X has 59000% better value for money than Celeron 847E.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 847E: 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 32 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 1.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 35 | 11 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 847E 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | Socket TR4 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 847E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 847E are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 847E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR3-1333 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 93.867 GB/s | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
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 | 16.84 | 0.33 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 32 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X has a 5003% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 167% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 847E, on the other hand, has 959% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 847E in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop processor while Celeron 847E 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.
