EPYC 9375F vs Celeron 6205

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel Tiger Lakeno data
Architecture codenameTiger Lake U (2020)Turin (2024)
Release date1 September 2020 (4 years ago)10 October 2024 (recently)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$5,306

Detailed specifications

Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F 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)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads264
Base clock speedno data3.85 GHz
Boost clock speed2/2 GHz4.8 GHz
L1 cache160 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache2.5 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography10 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data8x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistorsno data66,520 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F 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 configurationno data2
SocketBGA1499SP5
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt320 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F. 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 6205 and EPYC 9375F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR5

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUsN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 September 2020 10 October 2024
Physical cores 2 32
Threads 2 64
Chip lithography 10 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 320 Watt

Celeron 6205 has 2033.3% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9375F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron 6205 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9375F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9375F, 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 6205
Celeron 6205
AMD EPYC 9375F
EPYC 9375F

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.


1 1 vote

Rate Celeron 6205 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9375F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 6205 or EPYC 9375F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.