EPYC 9224 vs Celeron 2.0
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 211 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 15.79 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.89 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | September 2002 (23 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,825 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.0 and EPYC 9224 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 25 |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 4x 72 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 26,280 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.0 and EPYC 9224 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 |
| Socket | 478 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 200 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.0 and EPYC 9224. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.0 and EPYC 9224 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.0 and EPYC 9224. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.0 and EPYC 9224.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 24 |
| Threads | 1 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 200 Watt |
Celeron 2.0 has 174% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9224, on the other hand, has 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Intel Celeron 2.0 and AMD EPYC 9224. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.0 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9224 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
