Celeron J1850 vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX
Aggregated performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX outperforms Celeron J1850 by 16293% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1 | 2659 |
| Place by popularity | 10 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 2.77 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Storm Peak | Bay Trail-D (2013) |
| Release date | 19 October 2023 (less than a year ago) | 1 September 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | $82 |
| Current price | $11150 (1.1x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed Specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850 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 | 96 | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 6 MB | 224 KB |
| L2 cache | 96 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 384 MB | 2 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | Compute Die (CCD) Size 71 mm2, I/O Die (IOD) Size 388 mm2 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 78,840 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850 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 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | - |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| ECC memory support | no data | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 792 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
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.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX outperforms Celeron J1850 by 16293% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX outperforms Celeron J1850 by 16318% in Passmark.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 100.00 | 0.61 |
| Recency | 19 October 2023 | 1 September 2013 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 4 |
| Threads | 192 | 4 |
| Cost | $9999 | $82 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 10 Watt |
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1850 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX is a desktop processor while Celeron J1850 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7995WX and Celeron J1850, 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.
