EPYC 7663 vs Celeron Dual-Core T3500
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7663 outperforms Celeron Dual-Core T3500 by a whopping 6360% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2596 | 31 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.64 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron Dual-Core | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 2.16 | 20.38 |
| Architecture codename | Penryn (2008−2011) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 26 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $80 | $6,366 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 56 (Hexapentaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 112 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663 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 configuration | no data | 2 |
| Socket | Socket P PGA478 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 240 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.80 | 51.68 |
| Recency | 26 September 2010 | 15 March 2021 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 56 |
| Threads | 2 | 112 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 240 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3500 has 585.7% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7663, on the other hand, has a 6360% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 2700% more physical cores and 5500% more threads, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7663 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron Dual-Core T3500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3500 is a notebook processor while EPYC 7663 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3500 and EPYC 7663, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
