Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is 1732 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
- Performs up to 16% better in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 than Celeron G1620 - 103 vs 89 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 16 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 69% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - 55 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
89
86.40776699029125%
Value, $/FPS
$0.55/FPS
100%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 229 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
35.01712328767123%
Multi-Core
723
12.478425957887469%
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Aug 31st, 2017 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Ryzen Threadripper | Collection | Celeron |
Whitehaven | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket SP3r2 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
16 | Threads | 2 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
180 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
38.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |