EPYC 9275F vs Celeron M U3600
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | no data |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 18 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,439 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.2 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F 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 | BGA1288 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F 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 U3600 and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | 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 U3600 and EPYC 9275F.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 18 December 2010 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 24 |
| Threads | 2 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 320 Watt |
Celeron M U3600 has 1677.8% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 13 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M U3600 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9275F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M U3600 and EPYC 9275F, 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.
