Celeron 2950M vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X outperforms Celeron 2950M by a whopping 1763% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 489 | 2624 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.45 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 7.64 | 2.00 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Haswell (2013−2015) |
| Release date | 10 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 24 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 9,600 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | SP3r2 | FCPGA946 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 37 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Intel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors |
| Graphics max frequency | - | 1.1 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | - | 3 |
| eDP | - | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| VGA | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 60 | 16 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.53 | 0.78 |
| Recency | 10 August 2017 | 1 September 2013 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 2 |
| Threads | 24 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 37 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has a 1762.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 2950M, on the other hand, has 386.5% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2950M in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is a desktop processor while Celeron 2950M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1920X and Celeron 2950M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
