Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 2950X outperforms Celeron G3900 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is 1095 days newer than Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Consumes up to 72% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X - 51 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
- Performs up to 7% better in Assassin's Creed Valhalla than Celeron G3900 - 179 vs 167 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 32 vs 2 threads
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
167
93%
Value, £/FPS
£0.12/FPS
100%
Price, £
£19.99
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £19.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 19643 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G3900 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X |
---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2018 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Skylake | Codename | Colfax |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 16 |
2 | Threads | 32 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
51 W | TDP | 180 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Intel HD 510 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |