CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i9-7920X and Intel Celeron G6900 sit at opposite ends of Intel’s desktop spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm with startling consistency. Across every head-to-head test, the i9-7920X wins by a margin of roughly 425%, a figure so uniform it suggests the comparison is less about architecture nuance and more about fundamental class difference. The data shows a 12-core, 24-thread Skylake-X part from 2017 overwhelming a 2-core, 2-thread Alder Lake-S chip from 2022 in raw throughput, yet the Celeron’s newer process node and integrated graphics give it a distinct identity. The i9-7920X is the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads and heavy compute, while the Celeron G6900 serves as an entry-level, power-efficient option with modern platform features. Neither chip is a substitute for the other; they target entirely different builds, and the numbers make that split unambiguous.

The Verdict

The data is brutal in its clarity: the i9-7920X wins all 6 head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 425% to 426.7%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i9-7920X scores 19,991 versus the Celeron’s 3,808, a 425% advantage. Even in single-core tests, where the newer Celeron might be expected to close the gap, the i9-7920X leads by 425.5% (2,822 vs 537). This is not a close contest; it is a generational and class-based rout. The i9-7920X’s average benchmark score of 5,673 places it in the 61st percentile of all CPUs, while the Celeron’s average of 5,561 sits at the same 61st percentile, a statistical tie in overall ranking, despite the massive per-test disparities. That paradox is worth noting: the i9-7920X’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7F32 (avg score 5,703, 0.5% higher) and the Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (5,730, 1% higher), while the Celeron’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900X (5,555, 0.1% higher) and the Core i7-12700T (5,606, 0.8% higher). The Celeron’s percentile parity comes from its Passmark suite results, which the i9-7920X lacks, a data asymmetry that flatters the Celeron in aggregate. For buyers, the verdict is simple: choose the i9-7920X for uncompromised multi-core performance, and choose the Celeron G6900 for a low-power, low-cost entry point with modern socket support. The data does not support any middle ground.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is vast, and the spec sheet tells the story. The i9-7920X uses a 14 nm Skylake-X design with 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Celeron G6900 uses a 10 nm Alder Lake-S design with 2 cores and 2 threads. The i9-7920X has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz; the Celeron runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz with no boost clock listed. The i9-7920X’s cache hierarchy is built for scale: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16.5 MB shared L3. The Celeron counters with 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and a far smaller 4 MB shared L3. Process node differences are stark, 14 nm versus 10 nm, but the i9-7920X’s larger die (484 mm²) and higher TDP (140 W versus 46 W) reflect its workstation ambitions. The i9-7920X supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, while the Celeron supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with no bandwidth figure listed. PCIe capabilities diverge sharply: the i9-7920X offers Gen 3 with 44 lanes (CPU only), while the Celeron offers Gen 5, though lane count is not specified. The i9-7920X has no integrated graphics; the Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710. The i9-7920X is unlocked (multiplier unlocked: true), while the Celeron is locked. Production status also differs: the i9-7920X is end-of-life, and the Celeron is active. These are not minor tweaks; they are completely different silicon philosophies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a masterclass in consistent dominance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i9-7920X scores 2,015 against the Celeron’s 383, a 426.1% delta. Single-core R15 follows the same pattern: 284 versus 54, a 425.9% delta. Move to Cinebench R20, and the i9-7920X posts 8,396 multicore versus 1,599 (425.1%) and 1,185 single-core versus 225 (426.7%). In Cinebench R23, the i9-7920X hits 19,991 multicore versus 3,808 (425%) and 2,822 single-core versus 537 (425.5%). Every single delta sits between 425% and 426.7%, a remarkably tight band that suggests the i9-7920X’s advantage is purely multiplicative, roughly 5.25 times the Celeron’s output in every test. This uniformity implies that neither chip is bottlenecked by memory or cache in these tests; the core count and thread count difference (12/24 versus 2/2) dominates everything. The i9-7920X’s 24 threads allow it to saturate Cinebench’s rendering workloads, while the Celeron’s 2 threads are maxed out instantly. The single-core results are more telling: despite the Celeron’s higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz) and newer 10 nm node, the i9-7920X still wins by over 425%. This indicates that Skylake-X’s per-core performance, while older, is substantially stronger than Alder Lake’s entry-level Celeron implementation. The Celeron’s lack of a boost clock likely cripples its single-core potential, capping it at 3.40 GHz with no headroom.

FAQ

Q: Why does the i9-7920X win every benchmark by nearly the same percentage?

A: The delta range is extremely narrow, from 425% to 426.7%, across all six Cinebench tests. This consistency suggests the i9-7920X’s 12-core, 24-thread configuration provides a fixed throughput advantage over the Celeron’s 2-core, 2-thread design, regardless of the specific workload. The 24-thread count allows the i9-7920X to process roughly 5.25 times more work in parallel, and the single-core results show its per-core performance is also superior despite the Celeron’s higher base clock.

Q: Is the Celeron G6900 competitive in any benchmark category?

A: In the head-to-head data, the Celeron wins zero benchmarks. However, the Celeron has additional Passmark tests that the i9-7920X lacks, including data compression (44,464), data encryption (2,235), extended instructions (4,201), find prime numbers (34), floating point math (11,956), integer math (9,577), multithread (4,488), physics (407), random string sorting (5,149), and single thread (2,709). These scores are not comparable to the i9-7920X, as no corresponding i9-7920X scores exist in the data.

Q: How do the two chips compare in terms of platform longevity?

A: The i9-7920X uses Intel Socket 2066 and is marked end-of-life, while the Celeron G6900 uses Intel Socket 1700 and is marked active. The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the i9-7920X supports only DDR4. The Celeron also offers PCIe Gen 5, whereas the i9-7920X is limited to Gen 3 with 44 lanes. This makes the Celeron’s platform more current, but the i9-7920X offers quad-channel memory bandwidth (85.3 GB/s) versus the Celeron’s unspecified dual-channel bandwidth.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each chip?

A: The Intel Core i9-7920X has a launch MSRP of $1199, and the Intel Celeron G6900 has a launch MSRP of $52. These figures are from the respective launch dates of 2017-09-09 and 2022-01-03.

Q: Does the Celeron’s integrated graphics affect the benchmark comparison?

A: The Celeron G6900 includes UHD Graphics 710, while the i9-7920X has no integrated graphics. However, none of the head-to-head benchmarks (all Cinebench tests) utilize integrated graphics, so this difference has no impact on the reported scores. The iGPU is a feature advantage for the Celeron, but it does not translate to any benchmark win in this data set.

Q: Why do both chips have the same 61st percentile ranking?

A: The i9-7920X has an average benchmark score of 5,673, and the Celeron G6900 has an average of 5,561, which are very close. This is because the Celeron’s average includes its Passmark scores (which are numerous and often high, like data compression at 44,464), while the i9-7920X’s average is based solely on Cinebench and Geekbench scores. The Celeron’s Passmark data inflates its average, creating a percentile parity that masks the Cinebench dominance of the i9-7920X.

Where Each One Wins

The i9-7920X wins every head-to-head benchmark, so its territory is any workload that relies on multi-core rendering or single-core responsiveness as measured by Cinebench. With 24 threads and a 4.40 GHz boost clock, the i9-7920X is built for sustained compute: its 19,991 Cinebench R23 multicore score indicates it can handle heavy 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations without breaking a sweat. The 16.5 MB shared L3 cache and 85.3 GB/s quad-channel memory bandwidth support large data sets, and the unlocked multiplier allows overclocking for additional performance. The Celeron G6900, by contrast, has no head-to-head wins, but its Passmark results reveal strengths in specific micro-tasks. Its data compression score of 44,464 is exceptionally high, suggesting it handles compression algorithms efficiently for a 2-core chip. Its floating point math score of 11,956 and integer math score of 9,577 indicate it can manage basic arithmetic workloads, while its single-thread score of 2,709 shows it is not entirely sluggish in light tasks. For office productivity, web browsing, and light media playback, the Celeron’s UHD Graphics 710 and low 46 W TDP make it a viable choice for compact, power-conscious builds. The i9-7920X is a workstation part; the Celeron is an appliance part.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every measurable specification. Core and thread counts: the i9-7920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Celeron has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clock: 2.90 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. Boost clock: 4.40 GHz versus null. TDP: 140 W versus 46 W. Socket: Intel Socket 2066 versus Intel Socket 1700. Architecture: Skylake versus Alder Lake. Codename: Skylake-X versus Alder Lake-S. Generation: Core i9 (X-Series 7th Gen) versus Celeron (Alder Lake-S). Process node: 14 nm versus 10 nm. Die size: 484 mm² versus null. L1 cache: 64 KB (per core) versus 80 KB (per core). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core) versus 1.25 MB (per core). L3 cache: 16.5 MB (shared) versus 4 MB (shared). Memory support: DDR4 versus DDR4, DDR5. Memory bus: Quad-channel versus Dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 85.3 GB/s versus null. PCIe: Gen 3, 44 Lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 5. Integrated graphics: null versus UHD Graphics 710. Production status: End-of-life versus Active. Release date: 2017-09-09 versus 2022-01-03. Launch MSRP: $1199 versus $52. Multiplier unlocked: true versus false. Part number: SR3NG versus SRL67. The remaining fields, series, manufacturer, foundry, transistors, totalL3, vCache3d, ECC memory, and market segment, are either identical (Intel, Intel, Desktop) or null/identical in both entries.