Celeron T1600 vs EPYC 8324P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8324P outperforms Celeron T1600 by a whopping 10091% 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 | 159 | 3368 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.83 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 7.65 | 0.39 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | no data |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | 1 October 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,895 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8324P and Celeron T1600 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 64 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 2.65 GHz | 1.66 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 4x 73 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 35,500 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.075V-1.175V |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8324P and Celeron T1600 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 | no data |
| Socket | SP6 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8324P and Celeron T1600. 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 | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
EPYC 8324P and Celeron T1600 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 EPYC 8324P and Celeron T1600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8324P and Celeron T1600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | 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 8324P and Celeron T1600.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | 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 | 32.61 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 1 October 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 35 Watt |
EPYC 8324P has a 10090.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron T1600, on the other hand, has 414.3% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 8324P is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron T1600 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 8324P is a server/workstation processor while Celeron T1600 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.
