Celeron M 900 vs EPYC 9684X
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9684X outperforms Celeron M 900 by a whopping 98900% 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 | 17 | 3618 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 7.33 | 0.08 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Genoa-X (2023) | Penryn (2008−2011) |
| Release date | 13 June 2023 (2 years ago) | 1 April 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,756 | $70 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9684X and Celeron M 900 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 | 96 | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 192 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.55 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 800 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 1152 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 12x 72 mm2 | 107 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 135,240 million | 410 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9684X and Celeron M 900 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 | SP5 | PGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9684X and Celeron M 900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9684X and Celeron M 900 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9684X and Celeron M 900. 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 9684X and Celeron M 900.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 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.
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 | 69.30 | 0.07 |
| Recency | 13 June 2023 | 1 April 2009 |
| Physical cores | 96 | 1 |
| Threads | 192 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 400 Watt | 35 Watt |
EPYC 9684X has a 98900% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, 9500% more physical cores and 19100% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 900, on the other hand, has 1042.9% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9684X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron M 900 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9684X is a server/workstation processor while Celeron M 900 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.
