EPYC 9655P vs Celeron M 340
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9655P outperforms Celeron M 340 by a whopping 71329% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 340 and EPYC 9655P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3331 | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.62 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.63 | 23.66 |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | no data | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $10,811 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 340 and EPYC 9655P 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 96 |
| Threads | 1 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 512 KB L2 | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 12x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 99,780 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 1.356V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 340 and EPYC 9655P 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 | 1 |
| Socket | PPGA478 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24.5 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 340 and EPYC 9655P. 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 |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 340 and EPYC 9655P 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 M 340 and EPYC 9655P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 340 and EPYC 9655P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
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 M 340 and EPYC 9655P.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.14 | 100.00 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 96 |
| Threads | 1 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 400 Watt |
Celeron M 340 has 1566.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9655P, on the other hand, has a 71328.6% higher aggregate performance score, 9500% more physical cores and 19100% more threads, and a 3150% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9655P is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 340 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 340 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9655P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 340 and EPYC 9655P, 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.
