EPYC 9634 vs Celeron N2920
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9634 outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 11278% 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 | 3034 | 23 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | 2.27 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 3.26 | 8.95 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | Intel | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 1 December 2013 (11 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $10,304 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9634 has 5575% better value for money than Celeron N2920.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 84 |
| Threads | 4 | 168 |
| Base clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 2.25 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.25 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 22.5 |
| L1 cache | 56K (per core) | 5376 KB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 84 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | no data | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7.5 Watt | 290 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634. 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 |
| Smart Connect | + | no data |
| RST | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 6 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 844 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9634.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 128 |
| USB revision | 3.0 and 2.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no data |
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 | 0.54 | 61.44 |
| Recency | 1 December 2013 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 84 |
| Threads | 4 | 168 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 290 Watt |
Celeron N2920 has 4042.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9634, on the other hand, has a 11277.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 2000% more physical cores and 4100% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 9634 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron N2920 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron N2920 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9634 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.
