Celeron 725C vs Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 19 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.83 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Chagall PRO (2022) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 8 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 1 July 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 128 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.5 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | 27 | no data |
| L1 cache | 4 MB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 32 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 256 MB | 1.5 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 8x 81 mm2 | 131 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 33,200 million | 504 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C 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 |
| Socket | WRX8 | Intel BGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 17 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 8 March 2022 | 1 July 2011 |
| Physical cores | 64 | 1 |
| Threads | 128 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 280 Watt | 17 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has an age advantage of 10 years, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 725C, on the other hand, has 1547.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 725C is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX and Celeron 725C, 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.
