990X in every task. Its single threaded performance is a lot better than the celeron, and for tasks that dont have a ton of threads the faster single core performance would make the biggest difference. For multithreaded apps its 6 cores and 6 hyperthreaded cores would let it deal with 12 threads at a time letting it easily best 10 celeron cores @1GHz regardless of which celeron generation it was.
Multithreading is overhyped, you can only speed up a process so much until there is a single serial task that makes up most of its time and the time needed to complete those tasks cannot be changed by adding more cores, only by increasing clock speed or performance per clock.
I don't know where you will find a 10 core Celeron, but I don't want it either way. Celeron has always been slow, low performing CPU's with very little cache memory meaning crappy processing and overall slow performance. Today's CPU's have cache memory in the high megabytes, they have increased efficiency and a much better performing architecture and design. Also, hyper threading (virtual cores) allow for double the clock speed per core as on a CPU with only physical cores, so it performs even better in that regard (although it's useless for gamers and everyday en users).
Also, 1GHz means 100MHz per core, which is unimaginably slow. You wouldn't run the slowest of programs, not to mention ancient OS's with it. Not over 10 cores, anyhow.
When ppl make programs that fully use 4 cores, we will really start running around screaming "apocalypse!!!".
Till then even dual core high MHZ beat 4 core in many applications.
We will see in the future .
He didn't specify. Either way, 10GHz means AMD's world record of ~8.5GHz is simply useless
You do know clock speed and core count are completely separate things right? A 1Ghz 10 core celeron would have 10 separate cores each running at 1Ghz. It wouldn't be 100Mhz/core or 10Ghz in total, doesn't work those ways.
Something that no one here has mentioned is that there are tasks at which the celeron system might perform better... An application with an obscenely high cache miss rate may actually perform better on a celeron with separate cache for each core.
In any event, I'd wager on the 990 over 10 celerons for most workloads. The comparison here is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison though.