EPYC 7F32 vs Celeron B820

Place in the ranking	2870	475
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	3.65
Market segment	Laptop	Server
Series	Intel Celeron	AMD EPYC
Power efficiency	1.35	7.77
Architecture codename	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date	1 July 2012 (12 years ago)	14 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$86	$2,100

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32 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	2 (Dual-core)	8 (Octa-Core)
Threads	2	16
Base clock speed	1.7 GHz	3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed	1.7 GHz	3.9 GHz
Bus type	DMI 2.0	no data
Bus rate	4 × 5 GT/s	no data
Multiplier	17	37
L1 cache	64K (per core)	512 KB
L2 cache	256K (per core)	4 MB
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography	32 nm	7 nm, 14 nm
Die size	131 mm²	74 mm²
Maximum core temperature	100 °C	no data
Number of transistors	504 million	3,800 million
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	+
Unlocked multiplier	-	+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32 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 (Uniprocessor)	1
Socket	FCPGA988,PGA988	SP3
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions	Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2	no data
AES-NI	-	+
FMA	+	-
AVX	-	+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)	+	no data
My WiFi	-	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 2	no data	+

Security technologies

Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	-	no data
EDB	+	no data
Anti-Theft	-	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32 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 B820 and EPYC 7F32. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size	16 GB	4 TiB
Max memory channels	2	8
Maximum memory bandwidth	21.335 GB/s	204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support	-	+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card	Intel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processors	no data
Graphics max frequency	1.05 GHz	no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported	2	no data
eDP	+	no data
DisplayPort	+	-
HDMI	+	-
SDVO	+	no data
CRT	+	no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32.

PCIe version	2.0	4.0
PCI Express lanes	16	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron B820 0.52

EPYC 7F32 15.33
+2848%

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 B820 802

EPYC 7F32 23455
+2825%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.52	15.33
Recency	1 July 2012	14 April 2020
Physical cores	2	8
Threads	2	16
Chip lithography	32 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	180 Watt

Celeron B820 has 414.3% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7F32, on the other hand, has a 2848.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7F32 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B820 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron B820 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7F32 is a server/workstation one.

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B820 and EPYC 7F32, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.