EPYC 9734 vs Celeron D 352
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9734 outperforms Celeron D 352 by a whopping 36206% 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 | 3493 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.67 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.08 | 7.23 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Cedar Mill (2006) | Bergamo (2023) |
| Release date | May 2006 (19 years ago) | 13 June 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,600 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron D 352 and EPYC 9734 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) | 112 |
| Threads | 1 | 224 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 109 mm2 | 8x 73 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 125 million | 71,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 1.25V-1.325V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron D 352 and EPYC 9734 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 | 2 |
| Socket | PLGA775 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 86 Watt | 340 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron D 352 and EPYC 9734. 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 |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron D 352 and EPYC 9734 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 D 352 and EPYC 9734 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron D 352 and EPYC 9734. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron D 352 and EPYC 9734.
| 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.
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 | 0.16 | 58.09 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 112 |
| Threads | 1 | 224 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 86 Watt | 340 Watt |
Celeron D 352 has 295.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9734, on the other hand, has a 36206.3% higher aggregate performance score, 11100% more physical cores and 22300% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9734 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron D 352 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron D 352 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9734 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.
