Celeron 6205 vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in the ranking | 323 | not rated |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.45 | no data |
Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | Intel Tiger Lake |
Power efficiency | 9.75 | no data |
Architecture codename | ZEN+ (2018−2019) | Tiger Lake U (2020) |
Release date | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) | 1 September 2020 (4 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
Threads | 32 | 2 |
Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | no data |
Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 2/2 GHz |
Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
Multiplier | 35 | no data |
L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 160 KB |
L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 2.5 MB |
L3 cache | 32 MB | 4 MB |
Chip lithography | 12 nm | 10 nm |
Die size | 213 mm2 | no data |
Number of transistors | 19,200 million | no data |
64 bit support | + | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205 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) | no data |
Socket | Socket TR4 | BGA1499 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
AES-NI | + | - |
AVX | + | - |
Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205 are enumerated here.
AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR4 |
Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
Maximum memory bandwidth | 93.867 GB/s | no data |
ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
Integrated graphics card | - | Intel UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs (400 MHz) |
Pros & cons summary
Recency | 13 August 2018 | 1 September 2020 |
Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
Threads | 32 | 2 |
Chip lithography | 12 nm | 10 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X has 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
Celeron 6205, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 1100% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop processor while Celeron 6205 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and Celeron 6205, 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.