EPYC 9575F vs Celeron 2.8 GHz

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
Architecture codenameNorthwood (2002−2004)Turin (2024)
Release dateno data (2024 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$11,791

Detailed specifications

Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F 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 cores1 (Single-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads1128
Base clock speedno data3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz5 GHz
Bus rate400 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data1 MB (per core)
L3 cacheno data256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography130 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data8x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistorsno data66,520 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F 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 configurationno data2
Socketno dataSP5
Power consumption (TDP)52.8 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 64
Threads 1 128
Chip lithography 130 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 52 Watt 400 Watt

Celeron 2.8 GHz has 669.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9575F, on the other hand, has 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 3150% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron 2.8 GHz is a notebook processor while EPYC 9575F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.8 GHz and EPYC 9575F, 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 2.8 GHz
Celeron 2.8 GHz
AMD EPYC 9575F
EPYC 9575F

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.


2.8 32 votes

Rate Celeron 2.8 GHz on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9575F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 2.8 GHz or EPYC 9575F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.