EPYC 9645 vs Celeron M P4600
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2822 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.51 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 October 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $11,048 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645 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 | PGA988 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645. 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 P4600 and EPYC 9645.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 October 2010 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 320 Watt |
Celeron M P4600 has 814.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9645, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 966.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M P4600 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9645 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M P4600 and EPYC 9645, 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.
