CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X and the Intel Celeron G6900 occupy opposite ends of the desktop processor spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that divide with unusual clarity. The Threadripper 2920X is a 12-core, 24-thread Zen+ part built for heavy multi-threaded workloads, while the Celeron G6900 is a 2-core, 2-thread Alder Lake chip aimed at basic computing tasks. Across every shared benchmark, the AMD part wins by a substantial margin, though the Celeron counters with a much lower TDP and a more modern platform. The following analysis walks through the data to show exactly where each processor stands.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Threadripper 2920X scores 1267 versus 225 for the Celeron G6900, a delta of 463.1% in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Celeron G6900 includes UHD Graphics 710, whereas the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The Threadripper 2920X supports quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 93.9 GB/s, while the Celeron G6900 supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5, with no bandwidth figure provided.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Threadripper 2920X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Celeron G6900 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock listed.

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

A: The Threadripper 2920X has an average benchmark score of 5730, and the Celeron G6900 has an average benchmark score of 5561, placing both at the 61st percentile among all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is built on the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Colfax, using a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It features 9,600 million transistors across a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 213 mm². The Celeron G6900, by contrast, uses Intel’s Alder Lake-S architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel’s own foundry, with no transistor count or die size listed.

Cache layouts also differ sharply. The Threadripper 2920X provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a 32 MB shared L3 cache. The Celeron G6900 provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip’s larger L3 pool is consistent with its multi-threaded workload orientation, while the Intel part’s smaller cache suits its lighter task profile.

Platform support diverges as well. The Threadripper 2920X uses AMD Socket SP3r2 and supports PCIe Gen 3 with 60 lanes from the CPU. The Celeron G6900 uses Intel Socket 1700 and supports PCIe Gen 5, though the lane count is not stated. Memory channels also differ: the AMD part uses quad-channel DDR4, while the Intel part uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5. The Threadripper’s 180 W TDP is substantially higher than the Celeron’s 46 W TDP, reflecting the former’s higher core count and performance envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across the six shared Cinebench tests, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X wins all of them, with margins that are consistently massive. The smallest delta is 461.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the AMD part scores 21380 against the Celeron’s 3808. The largest margin is 463.1% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the AMD part scores 1267 versus 225 for the Intel part.

In Cinebench R15, the AMD part scores 2154 multi-core and 304 single-core, while the Celeron scores 383 and 54, respectively, yielding deltas of 462.4% and 463%. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the AMD part’s 8979 dwarfs the Celeron’s 1599, a 461.5% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the AMD part at 3018 versus 537, a 462% gap.

These results are not close by any measure. The AMD part’s 12 cores and 24 threads give it a decisive edge in multi-threaded rendering, but its single-core advantage is equally large, which is notable given the Celeron’s newer Alder Lake architecture. The data shows no benchmark where the Celeron is competitive, and the wins tally stands at 6 for the Threadripper 2920X and 0 for the Celeron G6900.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification field. The Threadripper 2920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks are close (3.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz), but the Threadripper adds a 4.30 GHz boost clock, while the Celeron has no boost clock listed. TDP is 180 W for the AMD part and 46 W for the Intel part.

Sockets and architectures are entirely different: AMD Socket SP3r2 with Zen+ (Colfax) versus Intel Socket 1700 with Alder Lake-S. The process node is 12 nm for the AMD part and 10 nm for the Intel part. Cache structures differ in size and organization, with the Threadripper offering 32 MB L3 versus 4 MB for the Celeron. Memory support diverges: the AMD part uses quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with no bandwidth listed. PCIe support is Gen 3 with 60 lanes for the AMD part versus Gen 5 for the Intel part. The Threadripper has no integrated graphics, while the Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the Celeron’s multiplier is locked. Launch MSRP is $649 for the Threadripper and $52 for the Celeron.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X wins every benchmark where the two are directly compared, which makes its use case straightforward: any workload that can use more than two cores will strongly favor the AMD part. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21380 versus 3808 indicates a 461.4% advantage, meaning tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and software compilation will see massive improvements on the Threadripper. Its 32 MB L3 cache and 24 threads also suggest strong performance in data-heavy parallel applications. The Threadripper’s quad-channel memory with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth further supports this profile.

The Intel Celeron G6900 does not win any of the compared benchmarks, but it has strengths outside those tests. Its 46 W TDP is a fraction of the Threadripper’s 180 W, making it suitable for low-power or passively cooled systems. The inclusion of UHD Graphics 710 means it can run a display without a discrete GPU, which is not possible on the Threadripper. The Celeron’s support for DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5 also gives it a modern platform foundation, though the Threadripper’s 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are far more numerous for expansion. For basic office tasks, web browsing, or lightweight media playback, the Celeron’s two cores are sufficient, and its lower power draw makes it easier to integrate into compact builds.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leads to a clear split based on workload. For anyone running multi-threaded applications, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is the only choice between these two, as it wins all six compared tests with deltas between 461.4% and 463.1%. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, 32 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory provide a level of parallel throughput that the Celeron G6900 cannot approach. The Threadripper’s 61st percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5730, places it near parts like the AMD EPYC 7351 and Intel Xeon W-2175, confirming its workstation-class positioning.

The Intel Celeron G6900, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, still has a role. Its 46 W TDP and integrated graphics make it ideal for low-power desktops, basic computing, or as a budget server chip with modern connectivity. Its average benchmark score of 5561 places it at the same 61st percentile, with rivals like the Intel Core i9-10900X and Intel Core i7-12700T, which indicates that its overall score is dragged up by a broader benchmark suite that includes lighter tasks. For a user who needs raw compute, the Threadripper is the answer; for a user who needs a simple, low-cost, low-power chip with integrated graphics, the Celeron is the answer. The data does not support any other conclusion.