CPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unambiguous picture: the AMD EPYC 7351P dominates the Intel Celeron G6900 across every single tested workload, winning all six head-to-head comparisons. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the margin, in five of the six tests, the EPYC 7351P leads by exactly 82.8%, with the sixth (Cinebench R20 single-core) coming in at 82.9%. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7351P scores 22,135 versus the Celeron's 3,808, a 5.8x raw advantage. The single-core gap is similarly lopsided: 3,125 versus 537 in R23 single-core, again an 82.8% delta. Even in the traditionally single-thread-favoring Cinebench R15 single-core test, the EPYC's 314 score dwarfs the Celeron's 54. The EPYC 7351P also posts 9,296 in R20 multi-core against the Celeron's 1,599, and 1,312 in R20 single-core versus 225.

The Celeron G6900 does not register a single win in this head-to-head set. Its average benchmark score of 5,561 actually edges out the EPYC's 5,469, a 1.7% difference, but this aggregate figure is misleading because the two CPUs were tested on different benchmark suites. The Celeron's PassMark results (integer math 9,577, floating-point math 11,956, data compression 44,464) have no EPYC counterpart in this data set, while the EPYC's Geekbench scores (multi-core 4,607, single-core 733) have no Celeron equivalent. The head-to-head Cinebench results, which directly compare both processors on identical tests, are what matter, and they are entirely one-sided.

The EPYC 7351P's nearest rivals in the overall database include the Intel Xeon W-1290P (0.5% ahead), AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 (0.8% ahead), and Intel Core i9-10900X (1.5% behind). The Celeron G6900's nearest rivals include that same Core i9-10900X (0.1% ahead), the Core i9-11900KB (0.5% behind), and the Atom x7433RE (0.7% behind). Both processors sit at the 61st percentile of all CPUs, which is a coincidence of the aggregate scoring, the actual workload performance gap is enormous.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P wins decisively in every multi-core test. It scores 22,135 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the Celeron's 3,808, and 9,296 in R20 multi-core versus 1,599. The margin is 82.8% in the EPYC's favor across all multi-core Cinebench tests.

Q: Is the Celeron G6900 competitive in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7351P beats it by 82.8% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. The Celeron's best single-core result is 537 in R23, while the EPYC posts 3,125.

Q: What does the Celeron G6900's aggregate benchmark score indicate?

A: The Celeron's average benchmark score is 5,561, placing it at the 61st percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-10900X, which scores 5,555 (0.1% behind). This aggregate includes PassMark tests that the EPYC does not have data for in this comparison.

Q: How does the EPYC 7351P compare to its closest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7351P's average score of 5,469 puts it 0.5% behind the Intel Xeon W-1290P (5,443) and 0.8% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 (5,425). It runs 1.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-10900X (5,555) and 1.7% ahead of the Celeron G6900 itself.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the two processors are directly comparable outside Cinebench?

A: No. The Celeron's benchmark set includes PassMark tests (data compression, encryption, integer math, floating-point math) and the EPYC's set includes Geekbench tests, but there is no overlap beyond the six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests in the head-to-head table.

Q: Which processor has the higher launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Celeron G6900 has a launch MSRP of $52. The AMD EPYC 7351P has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

# Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Celeron G6900 is built on Alder Lake architecture, specifically the Alder Lake-S codename, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It is a desktop-market part with 2 cores and 2 threads. The AMD EPYC 7351P belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, using the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It is a server/workstation part with 16 cores and 32 threads.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Celeron allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with a 4 MB shared L3 cache. The EPYC provides 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is a massive 64 MB, sixteen times larger than the Celeron's entire L3. The EPYC also carries 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, while the Celeron's transistor count and die size are not listed.

Memory architecture reflects their different market positions. The Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support and no memory bandwidth figure provided. The EPYC supports only DDR4 but in eight-channel configuration, with a specified memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s and full ECC support. PCIe generations also differ: the Celeron runs Gen 5, while the EPYC runs the older Gen 3.

The Celeron includes integrated UHD Graphics 710; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The EPYC's multiplier is unlocked, while the Celeron's is locked. The EPYC's production status is Active, as is the Celeron's, but the EPYC's release date is 2017-06-28 while the Celeron's is 2022-01-03, a gap of roughly four and a half years.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Celeron G6900 | AMD EPYC 7351P |

|---|---|---|

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Series | None listed | EPYC 7001 series |

| Cores | 2 | 16 |

| Threads | 2 | 32 |

| Base clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | None listed | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 46 W | 170 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Zen |

| Codename | Alder Lake-S | Naples |

| Process node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not listed | 4,800 million |

| Die size | Not listed | 213 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not listed | 170.6 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5 | Gen 3 |

| Integrated graphics | UHD Graphics 710 | None |

| Market segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release date | 2022-01-03 | 2017-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | $52 | Not listed |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | SRL67 | PS735PBEVGPAF |

The Celeron's boost clock is not listed, and its memory bandwidth is not specified. The EPYC's launch MSRP is absent from the data.

# The Verdict

The data dictates a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7351P is the superior processor in raw compute performance, winning every head-to-head benchmark by an identical 82.8% margin (82.9% in one test). For anyone whose priority is multi-threaded throughput, rendering, scientific computing, server workloads, the EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads with 64 MB of L3 cache leave the Celeron's 2 cores and 2 threads with 4 MB of L3 in a different performance class entirely. The EPYC's 22,135 Cinebench R23 multi-core score versus 3,808 is not a close contest; it is a categorical one.

However, the Celeron G6900 is not without purpose. It is a desktop-market chip with a launch MSRP of $52, a 46 W TDP, and DDR4/DDR5 support with Gen 5 PCIe. Its PassMark results, while not directly comparable to the EPYC's Geekbench data, show a functional processor for basic desktop tasks. The Celeron's 61st percentile aggregate ranking, which matches the EPYC's percentile, reflects that its benchmark suite includes workloads where it performs adequately relative to the broader CPU landscape.

The EPYC 7351P's advantages extend beyond raw speed. It offers ECC memory support, eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, and an unlocked multiplier, features aimed at server and workstation reliability and tuning. The Celeron counters with a much newer release date (2022-01-03 versus 2017-06-28), a smaller process node (10 nm versus 14 nm), and integrated graphics. But the Celeron's architectural advantages, newer node, newer PCIe generation, do not translate into benchmark wins.

Buyers should choose based on workload. For server, virtualization, or heavily threaded compute tasks, the EPYC 7351P is the only rational choice from this data, its 82.8% lead in every Cinebench test is insurmountable. For a low-power desktop build where the integrated GPU removes the need for a discrete graphics card and the $52 launch MSRP keeps initial cost minimal, the Celeron G6900 is a functional if unspectacular option. The data does not support any scenario where the Celeron outperforms the EPYC; it only supports scenarios where the Celeron's lower TDP and integrated graphics might be more appropriate for the use case. The EPYC 7351P is the performance winner by every measurable metric in this comparison.