EPYC 9755 vs Celeron G3900E
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in the ranking | 2278 | not rated |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | no data |
Market segment | Laptop | Server |
Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
Power efficiency | 3.46 | no data |
Architecture codename | Skylake (2015−2016) | Turin (2024) |
Release date | 2 January 2016 (8 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $12,984 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755 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) | 128 |
Threads | 2 | 256 |
Base clock speed | no data | 2.7 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
Multiplier | 24 | no data |
L1 cache | 128 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
L3 cache | 2 MB | 512 MB (shared) |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
Die size | 98.57 mm2 | 16x 70.6 mm2 |
Number of transistors | 1750 Million | 133,040 million |
64 bit support | + | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755 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 | no data | SP5 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 500 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
AES-NI | + | + |
AVX | - | + |
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755 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 G3900E and EPYC 9755. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | LPDDR3-1866 | DDR5 |
Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Maximum memory bandwidth | 34.134 GB/s | no data |
ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 510 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755.
PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
PCI Express lanes | 16 | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
Recency | 2 January 2016 | 10 October 2024 |
Physical cores | 2 | 128 |
Threads | 2 | 256 |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 500 Watt |
Celeron G3900E has 1328.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9755, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron G3900E is a notebook processor while EPYC 9755 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G3900E and EPYC 9755, 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.