EPYC 7413 vs Celeron Dual-Core T1400
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 126 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 15.09 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Merom-2M (2008) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 1 May 2008 (16 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,825 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.65 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 26.5 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 4x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413 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 | no data | 2 |
| Socket | P | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
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 Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 May 2008 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 180 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T1400 has 414.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7413, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T1400 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7413 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T1400 and EPYC 7413, 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.
