CPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a complete mismatch in raw compute capability. The AMD EPYC 7351, a 16-core server processor, utterly dominates the Intel Celeron G6900, a dual-core desktop part, across every single benchmark recorded. The Celeron does not win a single test in this comparison. This is not a contest of equals; it is a demonstration of what separates a workstation-class CPU from an entry-level desktop chip. The data shows that the EPYC 7351 is, on average, over 400% faster than the Celeron G6900 in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in multi-core workloads, where the EPYC 7351’s 16 cores and 32 threads produce an insurmountable lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 19,742 points against the Celeron’s 3,808, a delta of 418.4%. This pattern holds across all Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC scores 8,291 versus 1,599, a 418.5% advantage. The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the same story: 1,989 for the EPYC versus 383 for the Celeron, a 419.3% lead. These numbers indicate that for any heavily threaded task, such as video rendering, 3D simulation, or code compilation, the EPYC 7351 is in a different stratosphere. The Celeron G6900’s two physical cores are simply overwhelmed.

Even in single-core performance, where the Celeron’s higher 3.40 GHz base clock might suggest a competitive edge, the EPYC 7351 wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 2,787 versus the Celeron’s 537, a 419% difference. The same is true for Cinebench R20 single-core, where the EPYC scores 1,170 against the Celeron’s 225, a 420% delta. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 280 and 54, respectively, a 418.5% difference. This result is particularly telling. It demonstrates that the Zen architecture in the EPYC 7351, despite its lower 2.40 GHz base clock, delivers far superior instructions per clock (IPC) compared to the Celeron’s Alder Lake design in this specific benchmark environment. The Celeron’s clock speed advantage is completely negated by the EPYC’s architectural efficiency. The data shows a clean sweep for the EPYC 7351 with 6 wins and 0 wins for the Celeron G6900.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 7351 always faster than the Intel Celeron G6900?

A: Yes, in every benchmark recorded in the data. The EPYC 7351 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 418.4% to 420%. The Celeron G6900 does not have a single recorded win.

Q: The Celeron has a higher clock speed. Why is it slower?

A: While the Celeron G6900 has a 3.40 GHz base clock compared to the EPYC 7351’s 2.40 GHz, the EPYC’s Zen microarchitecture provides a massive IPC advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 2,787 points versus the Celeron’s 537, showing that architectural efficiency matters far more than raw clock speed in this comparison.

Q: What does the average benchmark score tell us about these two CPUs?

A: The EPYC 7351 has an average benchmark score of 5,710, while the Celeron G6900 scores 5,561. Despite the EPYC’s overwhelming wins in Cinebench, the average scores are close. This is because the Celeron’s average is pulled up by its Passmark tests, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. The Celeron’s Passmark single-thread score is 2,709 and its multithread score is 4,488, showing it can handle lighter tasks more effectively than the core-heavy Cinebench tests suggest.

Q: Which processor is in a higher performance percentile?

A: Both processors are in the 61st percentile of all CPUs, according to the data. This indicates that while the EPYC 7351 is a high-core-count server part and the Celeron is a low-core-count desktop part, they both occupy a similar position relative to the broader CPU landscape in this database.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each CPU?

A: The EPYC 7351’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7F32 (0.1% faster), Intel Core i9-7920X (0.7% faster), and Intel Xeon W-2175 (1% faster). The Celeron G6900’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900X (0.1% faster), Intel Core i9-11900KB (0.5% faster), and Intel Atom x7433RE (0.7% faster). This shows that despite their performance gap, they compete in similar average-score bands.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900 have any advantages in specific test categories?

A: Yes, the data includes Passmark tests for the Celeron G6900 only. It scores 44,464 in data compression, 2,235 in data encryption, and 11,956 in floating point math. These are not compared against the EPYC 7351 in the head-to-head table, but they show that the Celeron is not a useless processor for basic desktop tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures for different purposes. The AMD EPYC 7351 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and is part of the EPYC 7001 series. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. This is a server/workstation chip designed for maximum throughput. Its cache hierarchy is substantial: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a large 64 MB of shared L3 cache. This large cache is critical for keeping 16 cores fed with data.

In contrast, the Intel Celeron G6900 uses the Alder Lake architecture, specifically Alder Lake-S. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. It has a much simpler design with 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and only 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s L3 cache is 16 times larger. The Celeron also lacks the high-end features of the EPYC; it has no ECC memory support and relies on a dual-channel memory bus, while the EPYC supports ECC memory and uses an eight-channel memory bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Celeron does include integrated UHD Graphics 710, while the EPYC has none. The EPYC supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Celeron supports the newer PCIe Gen 5. Finally, the EPYC’s multiplier is unlocked, while the Celeron’s is locked.

Specification Differences

The specifications where these two processors differ are extensive and highlight their different market segments. The EPYC 7351 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Celeron G6900 has just 2 cores and 2 threads. The EPYC has a 2.40 GHz base clock and a 2.90 GHz boost clock; the Celeron has a 3.40 GHz base clock and no boost clock listed. The EPYC has a TDP of 170 watts, while the Celeron is much more power-efficient at 46 watts. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, and the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC’s memory support is DDR4 across an eight-channel bus, while the Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus. Crucially, the EPYC supports ECC memory, and the Celeron does not. The EPYC is from the EPYC 7001 series, and the Celeron has no series designation. The EPYC was released on 2017-06-28, and the Celeron was released on 2022-01-03. The Celeron has a launch MSRP of $52, while the EPYC has no listed MSRP. The EPYC has a TDP of 170 W versus the Celeron's 46 W. Their part numbers also differ: PS7351BEVGPAF for the EPYC and SRL67 for the Celeron.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of where each processor should be used. The AMD EPYC 7351 wins in every single benchmark category recorded in the head-to-head comparison. Its 419.3% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 418.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core make it the obvious choice for any workload that can utilize multiple cores. This includes server virtualization, database management, scientific computing, and 3D rendering. The 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory, are designed for sustained, heavy multi-threaded performance. Its ECC memory support is also critical for data integrity in server environments.

The Intel Celeron G6900 does not win in any of the head-to-head benchmarks. However, its data suggests a different use case. Its low 46 W TDP makes it ideal for basic, low-power desktop systems. The Passmark scores, which are not compared against the EPYC, show it can handle everyday tasks like data compression (44,464 score) and integer math (9,577 score). Its integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, which is a significant advantage for a cheap office PC or home theater PC. Its dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 provides flexibility for budget motherboard selection. In short, the Celeron is for basic computing, and the EPYC is for heavy lifting.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the workload. If the task is multi-threaded and performance-critical, the AMD EPYC 7351 is the only choice. The data shows it is over 400% faster in every Cinebench test, and its 16 cores, 32 threads, large cache, and eight-channel memory are unmatched by the Celeron. It is a server/workstation part for professionals who need maximum compute throughput.

If the task is a basic desktop workload, the Intel Celeron G6900 is a more sensible option. Its 46 W TDP, integrated graphics, and low price point (launch MSRP of $52) make it suitable for a simple, low-cost system. The data shows it is in the same performance percentile as the EPYC, but that is due to its Passmark scores rather than Cinebench performance. A user building a machine for web browsing, office applications, or light media playback would find the Celeron sufficient. A user building a machine for rendering, compiling, or running a server would need the EPYC. The benchmark results indicate that these CPUs are not competitors; they serve entirely different needs.