Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms Celeron 847 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is 2265 days newer than Celeron 847.
Advantages of Intel Celeron 847
- Consumes up to 91% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - 17 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 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt than Celeron 847 - 164 vs 151 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron 847 - 16 vs 2 threads
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra+
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
FPS
164
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1/FPS
100%
Price, £
£163.79
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £163.79 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 8 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra+
Mobile • Jun 19th, 2011
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron 847 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
---|---|---|
Jun 19th, 2011 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Sandy Bridge | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Mobile | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
1.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
17 W | TDP | 180 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
11.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |