Ryzen Threadripper 3970X vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000

Aggregate performance score

Celeron Dual-Core T3000
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.43
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
2019
32 cores / 64 threads, 280 Watt
39.73
+9140%

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3000 by a whopping 9140% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking295065
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data15.56
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Celeron Dual-CoreAMD Ryzen Threadripper
Power efficiency1.1613.43
Architecture codenamePenryn-1M (2009)Matisse (2019−2020)
Release date1 May 2009 (15 years ago)25 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 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 cores2 (Dual-core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads264
Base clock speedno data3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz4.5 GHz
Bus rate800 MHz8 × 16 GT/s
Multiplierno data37
L1 cache64 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data128 MB
Chip lithography45 nm7 nm, 12 nm
Die size107 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistors410 Million19,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketP (478)TR4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data256 GB
Max memory channelsno data4
Maximum memory bandwidthno data102.403 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 0.43
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 39.73
+9140%

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.

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 687
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X 63115
+9087%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.43 39.73
Recency 1 May 2009 25 November 2019
Physical cores 2 32
Threads 2 64
Chip lithography 45 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 280 Watt

Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has 700% lower power consumption.

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, on the other hand, has a 9139.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Celeron Dual-Core T3000
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X
Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 61 vote

Rate Celeron Dual-Core T3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 347 votes

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 3970X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron Dual-Core T3000 or Ryzen Threadripper 3970X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.