EPYC 9275F vs Celeron G1610

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2508not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.65no data
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Turin (2024)
Release date3 December 2012 (12 years ago)10 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$388$3,439

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F 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)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads248
Base clock speed2.6 GHz4.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache2 MB (shared)256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm4 nm
Die size94 mm28x 70.6 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data66,520 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F 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 configuration12
SocketFCLGA1155SP5
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt320 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
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+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel ProcessorsN/A
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 December 2012 10 October 2024
Physical cores 2 24
Threads 2 48
Chip lithography 22 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 320 Watt

Celeron G1610 has 481.8% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9275F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 1100% more physical cores and 2300% more threads, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Celeron G1610 is a desktop processor while EPYC 9275F is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610 and EPYC 9275F, 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 G1610
Celeron G1610
AMD EPYC 9275F
EPYC 9275F

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.


3.1 236 votes

Rate Celeron G1610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 9275F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron G1610 or EPYC 9275F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.