Celeron N2920 vs i9-7900X

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i9-7900X
2017
10 cores / 20 threads, 140 Watt
13.76
+2119%

Core i9-7900X outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 2119% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking5562785
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.05no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesCore i9 (Desktop)Intel Celeron
Power efficiency8.968.08
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2019)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date30 May 2017 (7 years ago)1 December 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads204
Base clock speed3.3 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed4.5 GHz2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier33no data
L1 cache640 KB56K (per core)
L2 cache10 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache13.75 MB0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperature95 °C105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)72 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketSocket R4FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX+-
Idle Statesno data+
Smart Connectno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB++
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-d+-
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size128 GB8 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth85.33 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Graphics max frequencyno data844 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes444
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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.

i9-7900X 13.76
+2119%
Celeron N2920 0.62

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.

i9-7900X 21065
+2117%
Celeron N2920 950

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.

i9-7900X 7287
+607%
Celeron N2920 1030

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

i9-7900X 49738
+1309%
Celeron N2920 3530

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.

i9-7900X 12678
+581%
Celeron N2920 1861

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

i9-7900X 2.91
+999%
Celeron N2920 31.99

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

i9-7900X 24
+1570%
Celeron N2920 1

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

i9-7900X 2148
+1713%
Celeron N2920 119

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

i9-7900X 193
+493%
Celeron N2920 33

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

i9-7900X 2.2
+479%
Celeron N2920 0.38

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

i9-7900X 12.1
+5662%
Celeron N2920 0.2

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

i9-7900X 121
+1347%
Celeron N2920 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

i9-7900X 217
+416%
Celeron N2920 42

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

i9-7900X 5918
+242%
Celeron N2920 1728

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.76 0.62
Recency 30 May 2017 1 December 2013
Physical cores 10 4
Threads 20 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 7 Watt

i9-7900X has a 2119.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 150% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron N2920, on the other hand, has 1900% lower power consumption.

The Core i9-7900X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.

Note that Core i9-7900X is a desktop processor while Celeron N2920 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i9-7900X and Celeron N2920, 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 Core i9-7900X
Core i9-7900X
Intel Celeron N2920
Celeron N2920

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.


4 212 votes

Rate Core i9-7900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 32 votes

Rate Celeron N2920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i9-7900X or Celeron N2920, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.