EPYC 7H12 vs Celeron 1020E
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7H12 outperforms Celeron 1020E by a whopping 4847% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2428 | 37 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 22.05 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) | 18 September 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Current price | $27 | $1970 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12 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 configuration | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | G2 (988B) | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) | no data |
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.
EPYC 7H12 outperforms Celeron 1020E by 4847% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 7H12 outperforms Celeron 1020E by 4853% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.91 | 45.02 |
| Recency | 20 January 2013 | 18 September 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 64 |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1020E in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron 1020E is a notebook processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7H12, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
