Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1610 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is 1732 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 66% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - $37.0 vs $109.99
- Up to 65% better value when playing Control than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - $0.19 vs $0.55 per FPS
- 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
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
- Performs up to 1% better in Control than Celeron G1610 - 201 vs 199 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 16 vs 2 threads
Control
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 94 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
FPS
201
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.55/FPS
34%
Price, $
$109.99
33%
FPS Winner
Buy for $109.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 96 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 180 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |