EPYC 7302P vs Celeron M 450
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 450 and EPYC 7302P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 12.95 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.56 |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $825 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 450 and EPYC 7302P 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 30 |
| L1 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.0V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 450 and EPYC 7302P 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | PPGA478 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 155 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 450 and EPYC 7302P. 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 450 and EPYC 7302P 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 450 and EPYC 7302P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 450 and EPYC 7302P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 155 Watt |
Celeron M 450 has 474.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7302P, on the other hand, has 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 450 and EPYC 7302P. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 450 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 450 and EPYC 7302P, 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.
