Celeron M 585 vs EPYC 7C13
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7C13 outperforms Celeron M 585 by a whopping 11295% 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 | 68 | 3244 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 8.18 | 0.52 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Milan (2021−2023) | Merom (2006−2008) |
| Release date | 2021 (4 years ago) | 20 August 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $70 |
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7C13 and Celeron M 585 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 | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 128 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.68 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 667 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 256 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 8x 81 mm2 | 143 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 33,200 million | 291 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7C13 and Celeron M 585 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 | 2 | no data |
| Socket | SP3 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7C13 and Celeron M 585. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7C13 and Celeron M 585 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7C13 and Celeron M 585. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7C13 and Celeron M 585.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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 | 43.30 | 0.38 |
| Physical cores | 64 | 1 |
| Threads | 128 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 31 Watt |
EPYC 7C13 has a 11294.7% higher aggregate performance score, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 585, on the other hand, has 625.8% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 7C13 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 585 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7C13 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron M 585 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
