Ryzen 9 3900XT vs Celeron 900
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 9 3900XT outperforms Celeron 900 by a whopping 7742% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3157 | 273 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 25.93 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 9 |
| Power efficiency | 0.71 | 18.48 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Matisse 2 (2020) |
| Release date | 1 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 7 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | no data | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 24 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | PGA478 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.26 | 20.39 |
| Recency | 1 January 2009 | 7 July 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 105 Watt |
Celeron 900 has 200% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 9 3900XT, on the other hand, has a 7742.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 9 3900XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 900 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 900 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 9 3900XT is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 900 and Ryzen 9 3900XT, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
