EPYC 7502P vs Celeron 2.80

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron 2.80
2003
1 core / 1 thread, 73 Watt
0.12
EPYC 7502P
2019
32 cores / 64 threads, 180 Watt
32.06
+26617%

EPYC 7502P outperforms Celeron 2.80 by a whopping 26617% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 2.80 and EPYC 7502P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3363127
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data9.57
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency0.1616.85
Architecture codenameNorthwood (2002−2004)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release dateNovember 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.

no data

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 cores1 (Single-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads164
Base clock speedno data2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz3.35 GHz
Multiplierno data25
L1 cache8 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache128 KB512K (per core)
L3 cache0 KB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography130 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size146 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors55 million4,800 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
Socket478TR4
Power consumption (TDP)73 Watt180 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 2no 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 typesDDR1, DDR2DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channelsno data8
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 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.


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 2.80 0.12
EPYC 7502P 32.06
+26617%

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 2.80 190
EPYC 7502P 50932
+26706%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.12 32.06
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 a 26616.7% higher aggregate performance score, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7502P is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2.80 in performance tests.

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.

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 2.80
Celeron 2.80
AMD EPYC 7502P
EPYC 7502P

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.


2 9 votes

Rate Celeron 2.80 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 38 votes

Rate EPYC 7502P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 2.80 or EPYC 7502P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.