EPYC 9654 vs Celeron M P4500
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9654 outperforms Celeron M P4500 by a whopping 12110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M P4500 and EPYC 9654 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2793 | 6 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.36 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron M | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 19.90 |
| Architecture codename | Arrandale (2010−2011) | Genoa (2022−2023) |
| Release date | 1 April 2010 (14 years ago) | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $11,805 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron M P4500 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 cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 6 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 96 MB |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 384 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm, 6 nm |
| Die size | 81+114 mm2 | 12x 72 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 382+177 Million | 78,840 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M P4500 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 configuration | no data | 2 |
| Socket | PGA988 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 360 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M P4500 and EPYC 9654. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M P4500 and EPYC 9654 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M P4500 and EPYC 9654. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 460.8 GB/s |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M P4500 and EPYC 9654.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 75.70 |
| Recency | 1 April 2010 | 10 November 2022 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 360 Watt |
Celeron M P4500 has 928.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9654, on the other hand, has a 12109.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 4700% more physical cores and 9500% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 9654 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M P4500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Celeron M P4500 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9654 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M P4500 and EPYC 9654, 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.
