Celeron 817 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1940
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 29 July 2017 (7 years ago) | no data |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 28 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 16 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 9,600 million | 504 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | SP3r2 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | no data |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 14 | 2 |
| Threads | 28 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1940 has 600% more physical cores and 1300% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 817, on the other hand, has 958.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1940 is a desktop processor while Celeron 817 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and Celeron 817, 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.
