In Atomfall, the Celeron 3205U is slightly slower than the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron 3205U
- Consumes up to 92% less energy – 15 vs 180 Watts
- Consumes up to 92% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall – 207 vs 184 FPS
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall
- Is 2 years and 6 months newer – Aug 31, 2017 vs Mar 01, 2015
- Is 2 years and 6 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron 3205U vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Aug 31st, 2017
Average FPS
207 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
155 FPS
100%
Price, $
$128.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.62/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron 3205U vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron 3205U vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron 3205U
Mar 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
2 MB
6%
Base Frequency
1.5 GHz
39%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1600 MHz
60%
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Aug 31st, 2017
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
32 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron 3205U Mar 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Ryzen Threadripper 1900X Aug 31st, 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2017 |
$107.00 | MSRP | $549.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1168 | Socket | SP3r2 |
15W | Power Consumption | 180W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1600 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
