EPYC 9654 vs Celeron B810

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron B810
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.51
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
76.73
+14945%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron B810 by a whopping 14945% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron B810 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.30
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel CeleronAMD EPYC
Power efficiency1.3319.40
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date14 March 2011 (13 years ago)10 November 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron B810 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 speed1.6 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed1.6 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier1624
L1 cache128 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)384 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

Compatibility

Information on Celeron B810 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
SocketPGA988SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron B810 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
FMA+-
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron B810 and EPYC 9654 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron B810 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d-no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron B810 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size16.6 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/s460.8 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel® Processorsno data
Graphics max frequency950 MHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron B810 and EPYC 9654 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron B810 and EPYC 9654.

PCIe version2.05.0
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.


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 B810 0.51
EPYC 9654 76.73
+14945%

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 B810 775
EPYC 9654 117179
+15020%

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.

Celeron B810 289
EPYC 9654 1817
+529%

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.

Celeron B810 528
EPYC 9654 18450
+3394%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.51 76.73
Recency 14 March 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 B810 has 928.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 14945.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron B810 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron B810 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron B810 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 B810
Celeron B810
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.


3 5 votes

Rate Celeron B810 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 992 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 B810 or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.