EPYC 9755 vs Celeron T3000
Primary details
Comparing Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755 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 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Turin (2024) |
| Release date | 1 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 10 October 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $12,984 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755 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) | 128 |
| Threads | 2 | 256 |
| Base clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 512 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | no data | 16x 70.6 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 133,040 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 1V-1.25V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755 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 | PGA478 | SP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 500 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755. 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 |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755 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 T3000 and EPYC 9755 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755. 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 T3000 and EPYC 9755.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 April 2009 | 10 October 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 128 |
| Threads | 2 | 256 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 500 Watt |
Celeron T3000 has 1328.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 9755, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 15 years, 6300% more physical cores and 12700% more threads, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron T3000 is a notebook processor while EPYC 9755 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron T3000 and EPYC 9755, 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.
