EPYC 9755 vs Celeron M 430

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron M 430 and EPYC 9755 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3377not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesCeleron Mno data
Power efficiency0.39no data
Architecture codenameYonah (2005−2006)Turin (2024)
Release dateno data10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$12,984

Detailed specifications

Celeron M 430 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 cores1 (Single-Core)128
Threads1256
Base clock speed1.73 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed1.73 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus rate533 MHzno data
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data1 MB (per core)
L3 cache1 MB L2 KB512 MB (shared)
Chip lithography65 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data16x 70.6 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data133,040 million
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
VID voltage range1.0V-1.3Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron M 430 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 configurationno data2
SocketPPGA478SP5
Power consumption (TDP)27 Watt500 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 430 and EPYC 9755. 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
PAE32 Bitno data
FSB parity-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron M 430 and EPYC 9755 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 430 and EPYC 9755 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 430 and EPYC 9755. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 430 and EPYC 9755.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Physical cores 1 128
Threads 1 256
Chip lithography 65 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 27 Watt 500 Watt

Celeron M 430 has 1751.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9755, on the other hand, has 12700% more physical cores and 25500% more threads, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron M 430 and EPYC 9755. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron M 430 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9755 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 430 and EPYC 9755, 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 M 430
Celeron M 430
AMD EPYC 9755
EPYC 9755

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.


2.9 27 votes

Rate Celeron M 430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate EPYC 9755 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron M 430 or EPYC 9755, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.