EPYC 7502P vs Celeron 2.80
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 125 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.77 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 16.82 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | November 2003 (21 year ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,300 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 25 |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 478 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P. 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 Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 32 |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 180 Watt |
Celeron 2.80 has 146.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7502P, on the other hand, has 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.80 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7502P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
