EPYC 9655P vs Celeron 600
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.42 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 23.22 |
| Architecture codename | Timna | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $10,811 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P 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) | 96 |
| Threads | 1 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 0.6 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 32 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 129 mm2 | 12x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 99,780 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P 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 | 1 |
| Socket | 370S | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P. 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 600 and EPYC 9655P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel i752 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 96 |
| Threads | 1 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 400 Watt |
Celeron 600 has 1233.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has 9500% more physical cores and 19100% more threads, and a 4400% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 600 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9655P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 600 and EPYC 9655P, 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.
