EPYC 7643 vs Celeron 1020E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 1020E
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.90
EPYC 7643
2021
48 cores / 96 threads, 225 Watt
48.79
+5321%

EPYC 7643 outperforms Celeron 1020E by a whopping 5321% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking254239
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data6.32
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.3920.14
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date20 January 2013 (11 years ago)12 January 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$4,995

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643 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 cores2 (Dual-core)48 (Octatetraconta-Core)
Threads296
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz3.6 GHz
Multiplierno data23
L1 cache64K (per core)3 MB
L2 cache256K (per core)24 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm7 nm+
Die size118 mm28x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)105 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,400 million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643 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 configuration12
SocketG2 (988B)SP3
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-

Security technologies

Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-3200
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron 1020E 0.90
EPYC 7643 48.79
+5321%

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.

Celeron 1020E 1406
EPYC 7643 76050
+5309%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.90 48.79
Recency 20 January 2013 12 January 2021
Physical cores 2 48
Threads 2 96
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 225 Watt

Celeron 1020E has 542.9% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7643, on the other hand, has a 5321.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 2300% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7643 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1020E in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron 1020E is a notebook processor while EPYC 7643 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 1020E and EPYC 7643, 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.


Intel Celeron 1020E
Celeron 1020E
AMD EPYC 7643
EPYC 7643

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.


4.5 2 votes

Rate Celeron 1020E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.2 232 votes

Rate EPYC 7643 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 1020E or EPYC 7643, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.