Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Celeron M 900
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 65225% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3403 | 28 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.40 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 0.22 | 17.76 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 14 July 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | $5,500 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 27 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX 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 | sWRX8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, AVX2, BMI1, BMI2, SHA, F16C, FMA3, AMD64, EVP, AMD-V, SMAP, SMEP, SMT, Precision Boost 2, XFR 2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.08 | 52.26 |
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 14 July 2020 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 64 |
| Threads | 1 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
Celeron M 900 has 700% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX, on the other hand, has a 65225% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 900 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 900 is a notebook processor while Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 900 and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX, 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.
