EPYC 75F3 vs Celeron 1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 1000M
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.69
EPYC 75F3
2021
32 cores / 64 threads, 280 Watt
43.95
+6270%

EPYC 75F3 outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 6270% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking272851
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data5.93
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.8314.57
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date20 January 2013 (11 years ago)12 January 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86$4,860

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores2 (Dual-core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads264
Base clock speed1.8 GHz2.95 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz4 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data29.5
L1 cache64K (per core)2 MB
L2 cache256K (per core)16 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm7 nm+
Die size118 mm28x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration12
SocketFCPGA988SP3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data

Security technologies

Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size32 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® ProcessorsN/A
Graphics max frequency1 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanes16128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron 1000M 0.69
EPYC 75F3 43.95
+6270%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron 1000M 1069
EPYC 75F3 68505
+6308%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron 1000M 296
EPYC 75F3 1826
+517%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron 1000M 509
EPYC 75F3 16432
+3128%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 43.95
Recency 20 January 2013 12 January 2021
Physical cores 2 32
Threads 2 64
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 280 Watt

Celeron 1000M has 700% lower power consumption.

EPYC 75F3, on the other hand, has a 6269.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 75F3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron 1000M is a notebook processor while EPYC 75F3 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1000M and EPYC 75F3, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron 1000M
Celeron 1000M
AMD EPYC 75F3
EPYC 75F3

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 165 votes

Rate Celeron 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate EPYC 75F3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1000M or EPYC 75F3, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.