EPYC 7352 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7352 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3500 by a whopping 3079% 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 | 2902 | 287 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.54 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.83 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 26 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $1,350 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7352 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 | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 23 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 32 MB (per die) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 4x 74 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 15,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7352 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 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | Socket P PGA478 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 MB | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7352. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7352 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7352 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7352. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 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 T3500 and EPYC 7352.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 0.72 | 22.89 |
| Recency | 26 September 2010 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 1 Watt | 155 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 has 15400% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7352, on the other hand, has a 3079.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7352 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron Dual-Core T3500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7352 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.
