Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1920X outperforms the cheaper Celeron G4900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G4900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is 236 days older than the cheaper Celeron G4900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Up to 75% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - $68.02 vs $270.0
- Up to 70% better value when playing Dirt 5 than Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - $0.47 vs $1.59 per FPS
- Consumes up to 70% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X - 54 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
- Performs up to 16% better in Dirt 5 than Celeron G4900 - 170 vs 146 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G4900 - 24 vs 2 threads
Dirt 5
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
FPS
146
85%
Value, $/FPS
$0.47/FPS
100%
Price, $
$68.02
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $68.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 13731 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
FPS
170
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.59/FPS
29%
Price, $
$270
25%
FPS Winner
Buy for $270 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 13732 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G4900 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X |
---|---|---|
Apr 3rd, 2018 | Release Date | Aug 10th, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Whitehaven |
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 | 4.0 GHz |
54 W | TDP | 180 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
UHD Graphics 610 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |