EPYC 9654 vs Celeron G1610T

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G1610T
2012
2 cores / 2 threads, 35 Watt
0.85
EPYC 9654
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
77.10
+8971%

EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron G1610T by a whopping 8971% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1610T and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25766
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.671.28
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.2619.89
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge (2012−2013)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date3 December 2012 (11 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89$11,805

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron G1610T has 421% better value for money than EPYC 9654.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1610T 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 speed2.3 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache64 KB (per core)6 MB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)96 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size94 mm212x 72 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)65 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1610T 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 configuration12
SocketFCLGA1155SP5
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1610T 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-+
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 G1610T and EPYC 9654 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 G1610T and EPYC 9654 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 G1610T and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size32 GB6 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/s460.8 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel® Processorsno data
Graphics max frequency1.05 GHzno data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1610T and EPYC 9654 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1610T and EPYC 9654.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

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 G1610T 0.85
EPYC 9654 77.10
+8971%

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 G1610T 1327
EPYC 9654 120176
+8956%

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 G1610T 329
EPYC 9654 1827
+455%

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 G1610T 582
EPYC 9654 18626
+3100%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.85 77.10
Recency 3 December 2012 10 November 2022
Physical cores 2 96
Threads 2 192
Chip lithography 22 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 360 Watt

Celeron G1610T has 928.6% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 8970.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G1610T in performance tests.

Note that Celeron G1610T is a desktop processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1610T 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 G1610T
Celeron G1610T
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 10 votes

Rate Celeron G1610T 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 G1610T or EPYC 9654, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.