EPYC 7543 vs Celeron N3050

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated77
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data7.63
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Power efficiencyno data16.13
Architecture codenameBraswell (2015−2016)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date1 April 2015 (9 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$3,761

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543 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 cores2 (Dual-core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads264
Base clock speed1.6 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.16 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus typeIDIno data
Multiplierno data28
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm+
Die sizeno data8x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketFCBGA1170SP3
Power consumption (TDP)6 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543. 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
Thermal Monitoring+-
Smart Response-no data
GPIO+no data
Smart Connect-no data
HD Audio+no data
RST-no data

Security technologies

Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Secure Boot+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection+-
OS Guard-no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data
VT-i-no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size8 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel® Celeron® Processor N3000 SeriesN/A
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency600 MHzno data
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX+no data
OpenGL+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543.

PCIe version2.04.0
PCI Express lanes4128
USB revision2.0/3.0no data
Total number of SATA ports2no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports2no data
Number of USB ports5no data
Integrated LAN-no data
UART+no 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.



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.

Celeron N3050 587
EPYC 7543 60901
+10275%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2015 15 March 2021
Physical cores 2 32
Threads 2 64
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 6 Watt 225 Watt

Celeron N3050 has 3650% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7543, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron N3050 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7543 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N3050 and EPYC 7543, 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 N3050
Celeron N3050
AMD EPYC 7543
EPYC 7543

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.


2.6 543 votes

Rate Celeron N3050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 6 votes

Rate EPYC 7543 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N3050 or EPYC 7543, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.