EPYC 9575F vs Celeron G6900TE
Primary details
Comparing Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2156 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 4.01 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Alder Lake-S (2022) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $11,791 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F 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) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | 1700 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F 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 G6900TE and EPYC 9575F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4, DDR5 Dual-channel | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel UHD Graphics 710 | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 4 January 2022 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 64 |
| Threads | 2 | 128 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 400 Watt |
Celeron G6900TE has 1042.9% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9575F, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron G6900TE is a desktop processor while EPYC 9575F is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G6900TE and EPYC 9575F, 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.
