AMD EPYC 7451 vs Intel Celeron G6900 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data draws a clear line between these two processors. The AMD EPYC 7451 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all six Cinebench comparisons with deltas between 437% and 438.7%. The Intel Celeron G6900 does not secure a single win in the shared test set. For workloads that scale with core count and thread count, the EPYC 7451 is the only choice from this data: it delivers 24 cores and 48 threads against the Celeron's 2 cores and 2 threads. For desktop use where the Celeron's integrated graphics and low 46 W TDP matter, the data shows a different kind of utility, but not a performance advantage.

The verdict from the data is straightforward. Server and workstation buyers should pick the EPYC 7451, as it dominates every recorded multi-core and single-core Cinebench score. Desktop builders who need a simple, low-power chip with integrated graphics should consider the Celeron G6900, but they must accept that it trails the EPYC by a massive margin in all measured compute tasks. The Celeron's average benchmark score of 5561 sits close to the EPYC's average of 5915, but that parity is misleading: the Celeron's average includes PassMark tests that the EPYC does not have recorded, while the head-to-head Cinebench results show a one-sided outcome.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7451 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on AMD's Zen architecture with the codename Naples. It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packs 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, and fits the AMD Socket SP3. The Celeron G6900 uses Intel's Alder Lake-S architecture, built on a 10 nm process from Intel, and fits the Intel Socket 1700. The process node difference is notable: the EPYC uses an older 14 nm node while the Celeron uses a newer 10 nm node, yet the EPYC still dominates compute benchmarks.

Core and cache configurations differ sharply. The EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads, with 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Celeron has 2 cores and 2 threads, with 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 64 MB L3 cache is 16 times larger than the Celeron's 4 MB. The EPYC also has a higher base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Celeron has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no recorded boost clock. The Celeron's higher base clock does not translate into a single-core win: the EPYC leads single-core Cinebench R23 by 437.6%.

Memory and platform features reinforce the divide. The EPYC supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus, no recorded memory bandwidth, and no ECC support. The EPYC uses PCIe Gen 3, while the Celeron uses PCIe Gen 5. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with an unlocked multiplier, while the Celeron is a desktop part with a locked multiplier. Their release dates differ by roughly four and a half years: the EPYC launched on 2017-06-28, the Celeron on 2022-01-03.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the EPYC scoring 2061 against the Celeron's 383, a delta of 438.1%. That is the smallest relative gap in the head-to-head set, but it is still a five-fold advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 290 against the Celeron's 54, a delta of 437%. The single-core gap is nearly identical to the multi-core gap, which suggests the EPYC's per-core performance is not the limiting factor; the Celeron simply cannot match the EPYC even on a single thread.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. Multi-core shows the EPYC at 8589 and the Celeron at 1599, a delta of 437.1%. Single-core shows the EPYC at 1212 and the Celeron at 225, a delta of 438.7%. The R20 single-core delta is the largest in the entire head-to-head set, indicating that the EPYC's advantage is not purely about core count. The newer Alder Lake architecture in the Celeron does not close the per-thread gap.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend. Multi-core: EPYC 20450 versus Celeron 3808, delta 437%. Single-core: EPYC 2887 versus Celeron 537, delta 437.6%. Across all six tests, the deltas cluster tightly between 437% and 438.7%, which is remarkable consistency. The EPYC's wins are not flukes of a single workload; they hold across three generations of Cinebench and both single-thread and multi-thread modes. The Celeron's best relative showing is 438.1% behind in R15 multi-core, and its worst is 438.7% behind in R20 single-core, a spread of only 1.6 percentage points.

The Celeron does have recorded PassMark scores that the EPYC does not share in the head-to-head set, including data compression at 44464, data encryption at 2235, extended instructions at 4201, find prime numbers at 34, floating point math at 11956, integer math at 9577, multithread at 4488, physics at 407, random string sorting at 5149, and single thread at 2709. These scores contribute to the Celeron's average benchmark score of 5561, but they are not directly comparable to the EPYC because the EPYC has no recorded PassMark results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7451 wins every multi-core head-to-head test. It leads by 438.1% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2061 versus 383), by 437.1% in R20 multi-core (8589 versus 1599), and by 437% in R23 multi-core (20450 versus 3808).

Q: Does the Intel Celeron G6900 win in single-core performance?

A: No. Despite the Celeron's higher base clock of 3.40 GHz compared to the EPYC's 2.30 GHz, the EPYC wins all three single-core tests. The deltas are 437% in R15 single-core, 438.7% in R20 single-core, and 437.6% in R23 single-core.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The EPYC 7451 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The EPYC also has a 64 MB shared L3 cache, while the Celeron has 4 MB of shared L3.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7451 supports ECC memory and uses an eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Celeron G6900 does not support ECC memory and uses a dual-channel bus with support for DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Celeron G6900 includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 710. The AMD EPYC 7451 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server/workstation part.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7451 has an average benchmark score of 5915, and the Celeron G6900 has an average of 5561. Both processors sit at the 61st percentile versus all CPUs in the database. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-9920X at 5917 (0% delta) and the AMD EPYC 7401P at 5814 (1.7% delta). The Celeron's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900X at 5555 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i7-12700T at 5606 (-0.8% delta).

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7451 wins everywhere that the head-to-head data measures. All six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, favor the EPYC with deltas above 437%. The EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads make it suited for multi-threaded server workloads, and its eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth supports memory-intensive tasks. Its 64 MB L3 cache, ECC memory support, and unlocked multiplier add to its appeal for server and workstation deployment. The EPYC is an active production part, so it remains available for new systems.

The Celeron G6900 wins in scenarios the head-to-head benchmarks do not cover directly. It has integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely, so a desktop build without a discrete GPU is possible. It draws 46 W against the EPYC's 180 W, which makes it far easier to cool. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving desktop builders memory flexibility. It uses PCIe Gen 5, a newer standard than the EPYC's PCIe Gen 3. Its launch MSRP is $52. The Celeron's PassMark results show strengths in specific tasks: data compression at 44464, floating point math at 11956, and integer math at 9577. These scores are not compared against the EPYC in the database, so they do not demonstrate a win, but they indicate the Celeron can handle lightweight desktop tasks.

For users choosing between these two, the decision rests on workload. The data shows the EPYC is overwhelmingly faster in compute benchmarks. The Celeron offers platform features the EPYC does not: integrated graphics, a newer PCIe standard, dual memory support, and a much lower TDP. The EPYC's average score of 5915 versus the Celeron's 5561 is a modest overall gap, but the head-to-head Cinebench results reveal the true scale of the performance difference.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every hardware specification recorded. The EPYC 7451 has 24 cores and 48 threads; the Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The EPYC has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz; the Celeron has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock recorded. The EPYC has a TDP of 180 W; the Celeron has a TDP of 46 W. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3; the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC is built on Zen (Naples) with a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries; the Celeron is built on Alder Lake-S with a 10 nm process from Intel. The EPYC has 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die; the Celeron has no transistor count or die size recorded.

Cache layouts differ across all three levels. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Celeron has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. Memory support diverges: the EPYC supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory is supported by the EPYC but not by the Celeron. The EPYC uses PCIe Gen 3; the Celeron uses PCIe Gen 5. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Celeron has UHD Graphics 710. The EPYC targets the server/workstation segment; the Celeron targets the desktop segment. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier; the Celeron is locked. The EPYC's part number is PS7451BDVHCAF; the Celeron's is SRL67. The EPYC was released on 2017-06-28; the Celeron on 2022-01-03. The Celeron has a launch MSRP of $52; the EPYC has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.