Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX is 2129 days newer than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX
- Performs up to 6% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Celeron G1610 - 202 vs 190 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 48 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 78% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX - 55 vs 250 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Oct 2nd, 2018
FPS
202
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$8.87/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$1791.28
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for CA$1,791.28 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 207 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Oct 2nd, 2018
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
426
34.493927125506076%
Multi-Core
739
9.977048737680573%
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Oct 2nd, 2018 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Ryzen Threadripper | Collection | Celeron |
Colfax | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket SP3r2 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
24 | Cores | 2 |
48 | Threads | 2 |
3.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
250 W | TDP | 55 W |
12 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
30.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |