EPYC 9654 vs Celeron B800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance rankingnot rated5
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data6.43
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Genoa
Release date19 June 2011 (13 years ago)10 November 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$80$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654 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)96
Threads2192
Base clock speedno data2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.5 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus support4 × 5 GT/sno data
L1 cache128 KB6 MB
L2 cache512 KB96 MB
L3 cache2 MB384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size131 mm212x 72 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors504 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketSocket G2SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NIno data+
FMA+no data
AVXno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+no data

Security technologies

Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size16 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/s460.8 GB/s
ECC memory support-no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanes16128

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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Celeron B800 652
EPYC 9654 116990
+17843%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron B800 by 17843% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Benchmark coverage: 41%

Celeron B800 248
EPYC 9654 1834
+640%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron B800 by 640% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Benchmark coverage: 41%

Celeron B800 421
EPYC 9654 18666
+4334%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron B800 by 4334% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 19 June 2011 10 November 2022
Physical cores 2 96
Threads 2 192
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 360 Watt

Celeron B800 has 928.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron B800 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B800 and EPYC 9654, 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 B800
Celeron B800
AMD EPYC 9654
EPYC 9654

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.


2.6 182 votes

Rate Celeron B800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 986 votes

Rate EPYC 9654 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron B800 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.