EPYC 7601 vs Celeron E1500
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7601 outperforms Celeron E1500 by a whopping 5223% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron E1500 and EPYC 7601 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3021 | 266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.59 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.57 | 10.99 |
| Architecture codename | Allendale (2006−2009) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | November 2008 (16 years ago) | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $63 | $4,200 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron E1500 and EPYC 7601 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) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 22 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (shared) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 77 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 105 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.5V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E1500 and EPYC 7601 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 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | LGA775 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E1500 and EPYC 7601. 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 |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron E1500 and EPYC 7601 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 E1500 and EPYC 7601 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 E1500 and EPYC 7601. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 170.671 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E1500 and EPYC 7601.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| 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. 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.39 | 20.76 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 32 |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 180 Watt |
Celeron E1500 has 176.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7601, on the other hand, has a 5223.1% higher aggregate performance score, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7601 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E1500 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron E1500 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7601 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E1500 and EPYC 7601, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
