Celeron J1800 vs EPYC 9754

VS

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking12not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.03no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency16.62no data
Architecture codenameBergamo (2023)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date13 June 2023 (1 year ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$11,900$72

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800 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 cores1282 (Dual-core)
Threads2562
Base clock speed2.25 GHz2.41 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz2.58 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)112 KB
L2 cache1 MB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache256 MB (shared)1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography5 nm22 nm
Die size8x 73 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Number of transistors71,000 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800 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 configuration21
SocketSP5FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)360 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data-
RSTno data-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data792 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800.

PCIe version5.02.0
PCI Express lanes1284

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.

EPYC 9754 100460
+17432%
Celeron J1800 573

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 June 2023 1 November 2013
Physical cores 128 2
Threads 256 2
Chip lithography 5 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 360 Watt 10 Watt

EPYC 9754 has an age advantage of 9 years, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron J1800, on the other hand, has 3500% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that EPYC 9754 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron J1800 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and Celeron J1800, 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.


AMD EPYC 9754
EPYC 9754
Intel Celeron J1800
Celeron J1800

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.


3.7 36 votes

Rate EPYC 9754 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 533 votes

Rate Celeron J1800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9754 or Celeron J1800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.