Celeron 900 vs Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X outperforms Celeron 900 by a whopping 15452% 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 | 107 | 3411 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.46 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.41 | 0.28 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | no data |
| Release date | 25 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 1 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Celeron 900 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 64 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | no data |
| Bus rate | 8 × 16 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 128 MB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Celeron 900 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) | no data |
| Socket | TR4 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Celeron 900. 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 | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Celeron 900 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 Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Celeron 900 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 3970X and Celeron 900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 102.403 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
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 | 35.77 | 0.23 |
| Recency | 25 November 2019 | 1 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 35 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has a 15452.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 900, on the other hand, has 700% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron 900 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is a desktop processor while Celeron 900 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.
