EPYC 9355 vs Celeron M 420
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Architecture codename | Yonah (2005−2006) | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,694 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.55 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 533 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 KB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 8x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 66,520 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 1.0V-1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355 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 | PPGA478 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
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 M 420 and EPYC 9355.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 32 |
| Threads | 1 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 27 Watt | 280 Watt |
Celeron M 420 has 937% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9355, on the other hand, has 3100% more physical cores and 6300% more threads, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 420 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9355 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 420 and EPYC 9355, 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.
