EPYC 9654 vs Celeron 430

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated6
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.29
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiencyno data19.90
Architecture codenameConroe-L (2007−2008)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release dateJune 2007 (17 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$50$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654 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)96
Threads1192
Base clock speed1.8 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.8 GHz2.4 GHz
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache64 KB6 MB
L2 cache512 KB96 MB
L3 cache0 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size77 mm212x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature60 °Cno data
Number of transistors105 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
VID voltage range1V-1.3375Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654 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
SocketLGA775SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States-no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data6 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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 430 289
EPYC 9654 120295
+41525%

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 430 155
EPYC 9654 1827
+1079%

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 430 160
EPYC 9654 18626
+11541%

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 96
Threads 1 192
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 360 Watt

Celeron 430 has 928.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has 9500% more physical cores and 19100% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Celeron 430 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 430 and EPYC 9654, 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 430
Celeron 430
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.


2.6 159 votes

Rate Celeron 430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 992 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 430 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.