EPYC 9655P vs Celeron 847

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated1
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.42
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel Celeronno data
Power efficiencyno data23.22
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Turin (2024)
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$134$10,811

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 847 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 cores2 (Dual-core)96
Threads2192
Base clock speed1.1 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed1.1 GHz4.5 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier11no data
L1 cache64K (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm4 nm
Die size131 mm212x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million99,780 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 847 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1023SP5
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt400 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
FMA+-
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P 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 847 and EPYC 9655P are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size16 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)N/A
Graphics max frequency800 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes16128

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 847 478
EPYC 9655P 155878
+32510%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 19 June 2011 10 October 2024
Physical cores 2 96
Threads 2 192
Chip lithography 32 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 400 Watt

Celeron 847 has 2252.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 13 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron 847 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9655P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 847 and EPYC 9655P, 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 847
Celeron 847
AMD EPYC 9655P
EPYC 9655P

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.


2.8 384 votes

Rate Celeron 847 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 38 votes

Rate EPYC 9655P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 847 or EPYC 9655P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.