AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X vs Intel Celeron G6900 Comparison

The Intel Celeron G6900 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X sit at opposite ends of the desktop processor spectrum. The Celeron is a 2-core, 2-thread part from 2022, while the Threadripper is a 12-core, 24-thread processor from 2017. In the six Cinebench tests recorded in the database, the Threadripper wins every one by a margin of roughly 80.6%. However, the Celeron counters with a lower power draw, integrated graphics, and support for newer memory and PCIe standards. This analysis breaks down the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X dominates every Cinebench test in the database. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Threadripper scores 1979 against the Celeron's 383, a delta of -80.6%. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern: 279 versus 54, also -80.6%. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 8248 for the Threadripper and 1599 for the Celeron, again -80.6%. The R20 single-core test yields 1164 versus 225, a delta of -80.7%. Cinebench R23 multicore continues the trend: 19640 against 3808, -80.6%. Finally, R23 single-core records 2772 versus 537, -80.6%. The consistency of the delta across all six tests is striking. The Threadripper's 12 cores and 24 threads provide a massive parallel advantage, but even in single-core workloads it leads by the same proportion. This suggests that the Threadripper's higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus no boost on the Celeron) and larger cache contribute to a per-thread performance edge as well.

The Celeron's average benchmark score in the database is 5561, while the Threadripper's is 5306. This seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but the average scores are drawn from different benchmark suites. The Celeron's average includes PassMark tests where it scores well in data compression (44464) and integer math (9577), while the Threadripper's average includes Geekbench results (7178 multicore, 1185 single-core) but no PassMark data. The head-to-head Cinebench tests are the only direct comparison available, and they show a clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Celeron uses Intel's Alder Lake-S design on a 10 nm process, while the Threadripper uses AMD's Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The Threadripper packs 9,600 million transistors across a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 213 mm²; the Celeron has no listed transistor count or die size. Core counts differ dramatically: the Celeron has 2 cores and 2 threads, the Threadripper has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are close (3.40 GHz versus 3.50 GHz), but the Threadripper adds a 4.00 GHz boost clock while the Celeron has none.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Celeron has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Threadripper has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3. The Threadripper's larger L3 is a significant advantage for workloads that reuse data across threads. Memory support differs as well: the Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the Threadripper is limited to DDR4 but uses a quad-channel bus with a listed bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Celeron has no listed memory bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is another split: the Celeron offers Gen 5, while the Threadripper provides Gen 3 with 60 lanes (CPU only). The Celeron includes integrated UHD Graphics 710; the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. Power envelopes are far apart: the Celeron has a TDP of 46 watts, the Threadripper 180 watts. The Threadripper also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Celeron does not. Sockets are incompatible: LGA 1700 for Intel, SP3r2 for AMD.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head data, the Threadripper wins every recorded Cinebench test. That makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on multi-threaded rendering, simulation, or content creation. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration, combined with 32 MB of L3 cache and a 4.00 GHz boost, delivers roughly 80.6% more performance in each test. The Celeron, however, has its own advantages outside raw compute. Its 46-watt TDP is far lower than the Threadripper's 180 watts, making it suitable for compact, low-power systems. The integrated UHD Graphics 710 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The Celeron also supports DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5, which are newer standards than the Threadripper's DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3. The Celeron's average benchmark score of 5561 is higher than the Threadripper's 5306, and its percentile rank among all CPUs is 61 versus 60, though these figures come from different test sets and should not be overinterpreted.

In the database, the Celeron's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900X (average score 5555, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i7-12700T (5606, -0.8%). The Threadripper's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-9900X (5301, 0.1%) and the AMD EPYC 7281 (5315, -0.2%). These placements show that each processor sits in a distinct performance tier, with the Celeron's average score aligning with high-end desktop parts from a different era, while the Threadripper's average aligns with server and workstation chips.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: Does the Celeron have a boost clock?

A: No. The Celeron has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock listed. The Threadripper has a base of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 4.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the Threadripper supports only DDR4.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Threadripper?

A: The Threadripper has a quad-channel memory bus with a listed bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Celeron's memory bandwidth is not listed.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710. The Threadripper has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the process nodes of these CPUs?

A: The Celeron is built on a 10 nm process, while the Threadripper uses a 14 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Feature | Intel Celeron G6900 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X |

|---------|---------------------|------------------------------|

| Cores | 2 | 12 |

| Threads | 2 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | None | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 46 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket SP3r2 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Zen |

| Process node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not listed | 9,600 million |

| Die size | Not listed | 2x 213 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 32 MB |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not listed | 85.3 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5 | Gen 3, 60 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 710 | None |

| Release date | 2022-01-03 | 2017-08-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $52 | $799 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | SRL67 | YD192XA8UC9AE |

The Verdict

The data is decisive for raw performance: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests by a consistent margin of about 80.6%. Anyone whose primary need is multi-threaded compute, such as video rendering, 3D simulation, or heavy compilation, should choose the Threadripper. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, 32 MB of L3 cache, and 4.00 GHz boost clock deliver a level of throughput the Celeron cannot approach. The Celeron, on the other hand, is the better fit for low-power, space-constrained builds where integrated graphics and support for DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5 matter more than raw core count. Its 46-watt TDP and $52 launch MSRP contrast sharply with the Threadripper's 180 watts and $799 launch MSRP, but those figures are secondary to the performance gap. The Celeron's higher average benchmark score and percentile rank are artifacts of different test suites, not evidence of superiority in the workloads covered by the head-to-head tests. For users who need maximum parallel processing, the Threadripper is the only choice. For users who prioritize efficiency, modern connectivity, and a built-in display output, the Celeron offers a distinct set of advantages. The database shows no overlap in their intended roles.