Celeron 817 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1955

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1955 and Celeron 817 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Ryzen Threadripper 1955 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threadsno data2
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz1.6 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rateno data4 × 5 GT/s
Multiplierno data16
L1 cache128 KB (per core)128 KB
L2 cache512 KB (per core)512 KB
L3 cache32768 KB2 MB
Chip lithography14 nm32 nm
Die sizeno data131 mm2
Number of transistorsno data504 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1955 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketSP3r2no data
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt17 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1955 and Celeron 817. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

FMA-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1955 and Celeron 817 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1955 and Celeron 817. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4no data
Maximum memory sizeno data16 GB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.335 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 10 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 17 Watt

Ryzen Threadripper 1955 has 400% more physical cores, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron 817, on the other hand, has 635.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1955 and Celeron 817. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1955 is a desktop processor while Celeron 817 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1955 and Celeron 817, 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.


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1955
Ryzen Threadripper 1955
Intel Celeron 817
Celeron 817

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 1955 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 3 votes

Rate Celeron 817 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 1955 or Celeron 817, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.