EPYC 4344P vs Celeron N3050
Primary details
Comparing Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 239 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 50.19 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 31.61 |
| Architecture codename | Braswell (2015−2016) | Raphael (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) | 21 May 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.16 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| Bus type | IDI | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | no data | 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 6,570 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P. 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 |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | - | no data |
| HD Audio | + | no data |
| RST | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Boot | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| OS Guard | - | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| VT-i | - | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel® Celeron® Processor N3000 Series | AMD Radeon Graphics |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 600 MHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | + | no data |
| OpenGL | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 28 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | - | no data |
| UART | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 April 2015 | 21 May 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 65 Watt |
Celeron N3050 has 983.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 4344P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron N3050 is a notebook processor while EPYC 4344P is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N3050 and EPYC 4344P, 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.
