EPYC 73F3 vs Celeron B840
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 73F3 outperforms Celeron B840 by a whopping 4671% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3022 | 214 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.27 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.66 | 4.62 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 1 July 2011 (14 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $3,521 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron B840 and EPYC 73F3 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 19 | 35 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 504 million | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron B840 and EPYC 73F3 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) | 2 |
| Socket | FCPGA988,PGA988 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B840 and EPYC 73F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| 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 |
Security technologies
Celeron B840 and EPYC 73F3 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 B840 and EPYC 73F3 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 B840 and EPYC 73F3. 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 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel Processors | N/A |
| Graphics max frequency | 1 GHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B840 and EPYC 73F3 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 B840 and EPYC 73F3.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 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.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 26.24 |
| Recency | 1 July 2011 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 240 Watt |
Celeron B840 has 585.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 73F3, on the other hand, has a 4670.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 73F3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron B840 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron B840 is a notebook processor while EPYC 73F3 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
