EPYC 9474F vs Celeron M 530
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9474F outperforms Celeron M 530 by a whopping 32189% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3462 | 27 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.82 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Celeron M | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.25 | 6.82 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Merom (2006−2008) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | no data | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $6,780 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 530 and EPYC 9474F 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) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 36 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 52,560 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 0.95V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 530 and EPYC 9474F 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 | 2 |
| Socket | PBGA479,PPGA478 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 530 and EPYC 9474F. 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 |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 530 and EPYC 9474F 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 530 and EPYC 9474F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 530 and EPYC 9474F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 530 and EPYC 9474F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.18 | 58.12 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 48 |
| Threads | 1 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 360 Watt |
Celeron M 530 has 1100% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9474F, on the other hand, has a 32188.9% higher aggregate performance score, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9474F is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 530 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M 530 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9474F is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
