Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms Celeron G4900 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is 183 days newer than Celeron G4900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Consumes up to 70% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - 54 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X
- Performs up to 5% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Celeron G4900 - 202 vs 193 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G4900 - 24 vs 2 threads
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
FPS
202
100%
Value, £/FPS
£3.11/FPS
100%
Price, £
£629.22
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £629.22 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 18835 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G4900 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X |
---|---|---|
Apr 3rd, 2018 | Release Date | Oct 3rd, 2018 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Colfax |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 12 |
2 | Threads | 24 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
54 W | TDP | 180 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
UHD Graphics 610 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |