Celeron G1610 vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX outperforms Celeron G1610 by a whopping 5251% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 32 | 2463 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.41 | 0.01 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Storm Peak (2023) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 19 October 2023 (less than a year ago) | 3 December 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,649 | $388 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX has 164000% better value for money than Celeron G1610.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 48 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.3 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 4x 71 mm2 | 94 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 26,280 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610 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 | sTR5 | FCLGA1155 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610. 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 | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610 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 PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 52.44 | 0.98 |
| Recency | 19 October 2023 | 3 December 2012 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 2 |
| Threads | 48 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 55 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX has a 5251% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron G1610, on the other hand, has 536.4% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1610 in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX is a server/workstation processor while Celeron G1610 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX and Celeron G1610, 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.
