Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX outperforms the cheaper Celeron G3930 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is 1288 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G3930.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX
- Performs up to 7% better in Deathloop than Celeron G3930 - 180 vs 169 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3930 - 128 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3930
- Up to 99% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX - £49.99 vs £5695.0
- Consumes up to 82% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX - 51 vs 280 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX doesn't have integrated graphics
Deathloop
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jul 14th, 2020
FPS
180
100%
Value, £/FPS
Price, £
£5695
0%
FPS Winner
Buy for £5,695 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77108 minutes ago
Buy for £49.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77107 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jul 14th, 2020
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Single-Core
608
38.04755944931164%
Multi-Core
1043
7.03398974912328%
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX | vs | Intel Celeron G3930 |
---|---|---|
Jul 14th, 2020 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
Ryzen Threadripper | Collection | Celeron |
Castle Peak | Codename | Kaby Lake |
AMD Socket WRX8 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
64 | Cores | 2 |
128 | Threads | 2 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
280 W | TDP | 51 W |
7 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 610 |
No | Overclockable | No |