EPYC 9755 vs Celeron 6205

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9755 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 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$12,984

Detailed specifications

Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9755 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)128
Threads2256
Base clock speedno data2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed2/2 GHz4.1 GHz
L1 cache160 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache2.5 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache4 MB512 MB (shared)
Chip lithography10 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data16x 70.6 mm2
Number of transistorsno data133,040 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9755 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 Watt500 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9755. 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 9755 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9755. 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 9755.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 September 2020 10 October 2024
Physical cores 2 128
Threads 2 256
Chip lithography 10 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 500 Watt

Celeron 6205 has 3233.3% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9755, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9755. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron 6205 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9755 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 6205 and EPYC 9755, 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 9755
EPYC 9755

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
5 1 vote

Rate EPYC 9755 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 9755, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.