EPYC 7763 vs Celeron T1600
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7763 outperforms Celeron T1600 by a whopping 14919% 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 | 3318 | 51 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.59 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 0.39 | 7.27 |
| Designer | Intel | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | no data | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 1 October 2008 (17 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $7,890 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron T1600 and EPYC 7763 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 | no data | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 1.66 GHz | 2.45 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 24.5 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | no data | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 1.075V-1.175V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T1600 and EPYC 7763 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 | PPGA478 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T1600 and EPYC 7763. 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 |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron T1600 and EPYC 7763 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron T1600 and EPYC 7763 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T1600 and EPYC 7763. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
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 T1600 and EPYC 7763.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.32 | 48.06 |
| Recency | 1 October 2008 | 15 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
Celeron T1600 has 700% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7763, on the other hand, has a 14918.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7763 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron T1600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron T1600 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7763 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.
