CPU Comparison

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 dominates the Intel Celeron G6900 across every single benchmark recorded in this comparison. The Threadripper wins all six head-to-head tests, with a consistent performance advantage of 79.7% in each instance. This is not a close contest; it is a categorical victory for the high-core-count workstation part, leaving the dual-core Celeron in a fundamentally different performance tier despite the Celeron’s newer architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron G6900 does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920. The wins column for the Celeron is zero, while the Threadripper claims all six. This means that in the specific tests covered, Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core variants, the Celeron is never ahead.

However, the Celeron’s broader benchmark profile shows where it can still be relevant outside this direct rivalry. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2709 is its strongest relative asset, and its average benchmark score of 5561 places it in the 61st percentile of all CPUs. In that context, the data suggests the Celeron is a competent entry-level desktop part for basic tasks, but it offers nothing that competes with the Threadripper’s raw throughput.

The Threadripper 1920, by contrast, wins every multi-threaded test by a wide margin. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18756 is nearly five times the Celeron’s 3808. The Threadripper’s wins are not marginal; they are sweeping, covering both lightly-threaded and heavily-threaded workloads. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide the parallel processing headroom that the Celeron’s 2 cores and 2 threads simply cannot match.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors is dictated entirely by workload requirements. The data shows that the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is the only option for any task that benefits from multi-core performance. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18756 versus the Celeron’s 3808 represents a 79.7% advantage in every head-to-head test, including single-core. The Threadripper’s 24 threads and 32 MB of L3 cache enable sustained throughput that the Celeron’s 2 threads and 4 MB of L3 cache cannot approach.

Pick the Intel Celeron G6900 only if the workload is extremely light, single-threaded, and constrained by platform cost or power limits. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2709 is notable for a dual-core part, and its 46 TDP is far lower than the Threadripper’s 140 TDP. The Celeron also supports DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5, which are modern platform features. But for any rendering, encoding, or compilation task, the Threadripper’s 79.7% lead in every Cinebench test makes it the clear choice.

Pick the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 for any serious workstation use. The data is decisive: it wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, and its 12-core, 24-thread configuration provides a level of parallelism that the Celeron cannot offer. The Threadripper’s 60th percentile ranking versus the Celeron’s 61st percentile is misleading; those percentiles are based on average scores across all tests, but the head-to-head results show a massive performance gap in the Threadripper’s favor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the consistency of the margin. In every single head-to-head test, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 beats the Intel Celeron G6900 by exactly 79.7%. This uniform delta across both single-core and multi-core tests is unusual and indicates a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific edge.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Threadripper scoring 1890 against the Celeron’s 383. That is a 79.7% lead, translating to roughly five times the raw score. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 266 versus 54, again a 79.7% gap. The Threadripper’s 3.80 GHz boost clock, despite its older Zen architecture, is sufficient to outpace the Celeron’s 3.40 GHz base clock in single-threaded work.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Threadripper scores 7877 in multi-core versus the Celeron’s 1599. The single-core result is 1111 versus 225. The pattern holds exactly: a 79.7% advantage for the Threadripper. This consistent delta suggests that the performance difference is proportional across all workload types, driven by the Threadripper’s six-fold core count advantage (12 vs 2) and its 24 threads versus the Celeron’s 2.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding test in the suite, reinforces the verdict. The Threadripper’s 18756 multi-core score dwarfs the Celeron’s 3808. Even in single-core, the Threadripper’s 2647 beats the Celeron’s 537. The 79.7% delta appears again, making it clear that this is not a case where the Celeron’s newer Alder Lake architecture compensates for its lack of cores. The Threadripper is simply faster in every measurable way.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920, with a score of 2647, is 79.7% higher than the Intel Celeron G6900's 537.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900 has an average benchmark score of 5561, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has an average score of 5425.

Q: Does the Intel Celeron G6900 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Celeron G6900 does not support ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 also does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900 has a TDP of 46 watts, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has a TDP of 140 watts.

Q: Which CPU has a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900 ranks in the 61st percentile, slightly higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 60th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Celeron G6900 is built on the Alder Lake-S architecture using a 10 nm process node at Intel's foundry. It is a modern, power-efficient design with a dual-core layout. Its cache hierarchy is generous per core, with 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, plus a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and it includes integrated UHD Graphics 710. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 and features PCIe Gen 5 connectivity.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 is a completely different beast. It is based on the original Zen architecture (codename Whitehaven) and built on a 14 nm process node at GlobalFoundries. It packs 9,600 million transistors across two 213 mm² dies. The cache structure is larger overall: 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 32 MB L3 cache. It supports only DDR4 memory, but in a quad-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. It has no integrated graphics, uses the AMD Socket SP3r2, and provides PCIe Gen 3 with 60 lanes from the CPU. The Threadripper also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking.

The architectural gap is stark: a 2-core, 10 nm, power-sipping desktop chip versus a 12-core, 14 nm, high-TDP workstation monster. The Celeron’s smaller process node and newer design give it efficiency advantages, but the Threadripper’s sheer core count and larger caches dominate in throughput.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight the core discrepancies between the two parts. The Intel Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Threadripper’s boost capability is a key advantage in single-threaded workloads.

TDP is another major difference: the Celeron uses 46 watts, while the Threadripper consumes 140 watts. This reflects the Threadripper’s larger silicon and higher performance envelope. The Celeron’s launch MSRP is $52, while no MSRP is listed for the Threadripper.

Memory support differs substantially. The Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, while the Threadripper supports only DDR4 but in quad-channel mode with a specified bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Celeron does not list a memory bandwidth figure.

Connectivity and platform features also diverge. The Celeron uses PCIe Gen 5, while the Threadripper uses PCIe Gen 3 with 60 lanes. The Celeron includes integrated UHD Graphics 710; the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. The Celeron is on the Intel Socket 1700, the Threadripper on AMD Socket SP3r2. The Celeron has a locked multiplier, while the Threadripper’s is unlocked. Finally, the Celeron is marked as Active in production, while the Threadripper is End-of-life.