AMD EPYC 7401P vs Intel Celeron G6900 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 7401P compare to the Intel Celeron G6900 in overall average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7401P has an average benchmark score of 5814, while the Celeron G6900 scores 5561. The EPYC is ahead by roughly 4.5% in this aggregate metric, though the two processors occupy the same 61st percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P wins every recorded single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3340 versus the Celeron's 537, a 522% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the gap is 1402 to 225, also a 523.1% lead.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance class according to the database?

A: Despite their different designs, both sit at the 61st percentile. The EPYC 7401P's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2388G (delta 0.2%) and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (delta 1.5%). The Celeron G6900's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900X (delta 0.1%) and Intel Core i9-11900KB (delta -0.5%), which reflects the Celeron's strong showing in specific workloads.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900 have any benchmark wins over the EPYC 7401P?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the EPYC 7401P wins all six Cinebench tests. The Celeron has zero wins in that comparison set. However, the database includes additional PassMark tests for the Celeron only, such as data compression (44464) and integer math (9577), which are not directly comparable to the EPYC's recorded suite.

Q: What are the memory and platform differences?

A: The EPYC 7401P supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Celeron G6900 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support and no recorded bandwidth figure. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Celeron G6900 includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 710. The AMD EPYC 7401P has no integrated graphics, as it is a server/workstation part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7401P is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, it dominates by margins between 521.3% and 523.1%. The smallest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core (23660 versus 3808, a 521.3% delta), while the largest is in Cinebench R20 single-core (1402 versus 225, a 523.1% delta). The EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads are designed for sustained multi-threaded workloads, and the data reflects that: it scores 9937 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, which is more than six times the Celeron's 1599.

The Intel Celeron G6900 wins in efficiency and platform simplicity, though the database does not record direct efficiency benchmarks. Its 46 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 170 W, and it supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving builders flexibility. The Celeron also carries integrated UHD Graphics 710, which the EPYC lacks entirely. For desktop use cases where a discrete GPU is unnecessary, the Celeron offers a complete platform in a single chip.

The PassMark data for the Celeron shows some interesting strengths: it scores 44464 in data compression, 11956 in floating point math, and 9577 in integer math. These are not directly compared to the EPYC in the head-to-head set, but they indicate that the Celeron handles specific single-thread-heavy tasks with surprising vigor for a dual-core part. The EPYC's recorded benchmarks, however, are all Cinebench tests, where it wins every single comparison.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7401P uses AMD's Zen architecture on the Naples codename, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. This is a server-class design with 24 cores and 48 threads, and its cache hierarchy is substantial: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The memory subsystem is eight-channel DDR4 with ECC support, delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 3.

The Celeron G6900 uses Intel's Alder Lake architecture, specifically the Alder Lake-S codename, on Intel's 10 nm process. It is a dual-core, dual-thread desktop part with 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with no ECC. PCIe is Gen 5, which is newer than the EPYC's Gen 3. The Celeron also integrates UHD Graphics 710, a feature absent from the EPYC.

The transistor and die size data for the Celeron are not recorded in the database, so a direct physical comparison is not possible. What is clear is the philosophical divide: the EPYC is a massive multi-core server chip with enormous cache and memory bandwidth, while the Celeron is a minimal desktop chip focused on low power and basic compute. The EPYC's multiplier is unlocked, while the Celeron's is locked.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every specification field. The EPYC 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks are 2000 MHz for the EPYC and 3.40 GHz for the Celeron; the EPYC has a 3.00 GHz boost clock, while the Celeron has no recorded boost clock. TDP is 170 W versus 46 W.

Socket types differ completely: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the Celeron. The EPYC's process node is 14 nm from GlobalFoundries, while the Celeron's is 10 nm from Intel. Cache sizes are starkly different: the EPYC has 64 MB shared L3, while the Celeron has 4 MB shared L3. L1 per core is 96 KB versus 80 KB, and L2 per core is 512 KB versus 1.25 MB.

Memory support: the EPYC is DDR4 only with eight channels and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC; the Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 on dual channels with no ECC and no recorded bandwidth. PCIe generation is Gen 3 for the EPYC and Gen 5 for the Celeron. Integrated graphics: none for the EPYC, UHD Graphics 710 for the Celeron. Market segment is server/workstation for the EPYC and desktop for the Celeron. Release dates are June 2017 for the EPYC and January 2022 for the Celeron. The Celeron has a launch MSRP of $52; the EPYC has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7401P scores 2384 against the Celeron's 383, a 522.5% advantage. In R15 single-core, the margin is nearly identical: 336 versus 54, a 522.2% lead. These numbers show that even in single-threaded workloads, the older Zen core at 2 GHz base outpaces the newer Alder Lake core at 3.4 GHz base, at least in the recorded Cinebench tests.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core: 9937 for the EPYC versus 1599 for the Celeron, a 521.5% delta. Single-core: 1402 versus 225, a 523.1% delta. The single-core margins are consistently slightly larger than the multi-core margins, which is notable because the Celeron has a much higher base clock. The EPYC's larger cache and more sophisticated memory subsystem likely compensate for the clock disadvantage.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend. Multi-core: 23660 versus 3808, a 521.3% delta. Single-core: 3340 versus 537, a 522% delta. Across all six tests, the EPYC's smallest winning margin is 521.3%, and its largest is 523.1%. The consistency is striking: the EPYC is roughly 5.2 times faster in every recorded Cinebench test, regardless of thread count.

The Celeron's PassMark results, while not part of the head-to-head set, provide context. Its single-thread score of 2709 and multithread score of 4488 suggest that in non-Cinebench workloads, it can perform admirably for a dual-core chip. The data compression score of 44464 is particularly strong. However, these tests are not recorded for the EPYC, so direct comparisons are impossible. The benchmark database records 6 wins for the EPYC and 0 for the Celeron in the direct comparison suite, which underscores the EPYC's absolute dominance in rendering and compute tasks. The Celeron's role is best understood as a low-power entry point, not a competitor to a 24-core server processor.