Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms the cheaper Celeron G4900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G4900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is 215 days older than the cheaper Celeron G4900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Up to 38% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - $49.74 vs $80.42
- Up to 32% better value when playing Total War: WARHAMMER III than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - $0.36 vs $0.53 per FPS
- Consumes up to 70% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - 54 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
- Performs up to 9% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Celeron G4900 - 169 vs 155 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G4900 - 16 vs 2 threads
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
FPS
155
91%
Value, €/FPS
€0.36/FPS
100%
Price, €
€55.21
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €55.21 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 18110 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
FPS
169
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.53/FPS
67%
Price, €
€89.27
61%
FPS Winner
Buy for €89.27 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 18111 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G4900 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
---|---|---|
Apr 3rd, 2018 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
54 W | TDP | 180 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
UHD Graphics 610 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |