Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 2920X outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is 2130 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 95% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - $37.0 vs $750.0
- Consumes up to 69% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X - 55 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 11% better in Battlefield IV than Celeron G1610 - 408 vs 369 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 24 vs 2 threads
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77142 minutes ago
Buy for $750 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77144 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Oct 3rd, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
426
33.437990580847725%
Multi-Core
739
9.914140059028709%
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 3rd, 2018 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Colfax |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 12 |
2 | Threads | 24 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 180 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |