EPYC 9654 vs Celeron N2920

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads
0.61

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron N2920 by a whopping 12890% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking26584
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data10.15
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Genoa
Release date1 December 2013 (10 years ago)10 November 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$11,805
Current price$278 (2.6x MSRP)$4544 (0.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)96
Threads4192
Base clock speed1.86 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz3.7 GHz
L1 cache56K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die sizeno data12x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654 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 configuration12
SocketFCBGA1170SP5
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVXno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Smart Connect+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Identity Protection-no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size8 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidthno data460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Seriesno data
Graphics max frequency844 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanes4128
USB revision3.0 and 2.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron N2920 0.61
EPYC 9654 79.24
+12890%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron N2920 by 12890% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Celeron N2920 950
EPYC 9654 122561
+12801%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron N2920 by 12801% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 79.24
Recency 1 December 2013 10 November 2022
Physical cores 4 96
Threads 4 192
Cost $107 $11805
Chip lithography 22 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 360 Watt

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron N2920 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2920 and EPYC 9654, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron N2920
Celeron N2920
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.5 31 vote

Rate Celeron N2920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 982 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2920 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.