EPYC 7H12 vs Celeron G3900TE

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G3900TE
2015
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
1.20
EPYC 7H12
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 280 Watt
45.02
+3652%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Celeron G3900TE by a whopping 3652% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking225637
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.3523.93
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Architecture codenameSkylake (2015−2016)Zen 2 (2019−2020)
Release date19 October 2015 (8 years ago)18 September 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$42no data
Current price$42 (1x MSRP)$1750

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7H12 has 1673% better value for money than Celeron G3900TE.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12 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 cores2 (Dual-core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads2128
Base clock speedno data2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus support4 × 8 GT/sno data
L1 cache128 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB512K (per core)
L3 cache2 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size98.57 mm210.3 mm × 9.57 mm192 mm2
Number of transistorsno data4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2 (Multiprocessor)
SocketLGA-1151TR4
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt280 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3L-1600DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 510no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

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.

Celeron G3900TE 1.20
EPYC 7H12 45.02
+3652%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Celeron G3900TE by 3652% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Celeron G3900TE 1850
EPYC 7H12 69633
+3664%

EPYC 7H12 outperforms Celeron G3900TE by 3664% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.20 45.02
Recency 19 October 2015 18 September 2019
Physical cores 2 64
Threads 2 128
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 280 Watt

The EPYC 7H12 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G3900TE in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron G3900TE is a notebook processor while EPYC 7H12 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G3900TE and EPYC 7H12, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron G3900TE
Celeron G3900TE
AMD EPYC 7H12
EPYC 7H12

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3 2 votes

Rate Celeron G3900TE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 450 votes

Rate EPYC 7H12 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G3900TE or EPYC 7H12, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.