EPYC 9654 vs Celeron J1900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J1900
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 10 Watt
0.75
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
78.01
+10301%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron J1900 by a whopping 10301% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26735
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.32
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Power efficiency6.8419.76
Architecture codenameBay Trail-D (2013)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date1 November 2013 (11 years ago)10 November 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$82$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)96
Threads4192
Base clock speed2 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.42 GHz2.4 GHz
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache224 KB6 MB
L2 cache2 MB96 MB
L3 cache2 MB L2 Cache384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die sizeno data12x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654 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 configuration12
SocketFCBGA1170SP5
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654. 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
PAE36 Bitno data
FDI-no data
RST-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654 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 J1900 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size8 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Seriesno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency854 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes4128

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 J1900 0.75
EPYC 9654 78.01
+10301%

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.

Celeron J1900 1151
EPYC 9654 119387
+10272%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron J1900 173
EPYC 9654 1827
+956%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron J1900 515
EPYC 9654 18626
+3517%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.75 78.01
Recency 1 November 2013 10 November 2022
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Chip lithography 22 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 360 Watt

Celeron J1900 has 3500% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 10301.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron J1900 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J1900 and EPYC 9654, 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 J1900
Celeron J1900
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.


3.4 195 votes

Rate Celeron J1900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 992 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron J1900 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.