CPU Comparison
AMD EPYC 7F32
Celeron G6900
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 7F32 vs Intel Celeron G6900
FAQ
Q: How does the AMD EPYC 7F32 compare to the Intel Celeron G6900 in multi-core Cinebench R23?
A: The EPYC 7F32 scores 19,718 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Celeron G6900 scores 3,808. That gives the EPYC a 417.8% lead, which is a roughly 5.2x advantage in raw multi-threaded rendering.
Q: Which CPU wins in single-core performance?
A: The EPYC 7F32 wins every single-core test listed. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,783 versus the Celeron's 537, a 418.2% delta. This is surprising for a server part, but the data is unambiguous.
Q: Does the Celeron G6900 have any benchmark category where it beats the EPYC?
A: No. Across all six head-to-head benchmark entries, the EPYC 7F32 wins all of them. The Celeron has zero wins (winsB: 0). There is no test in the provided data where the Celeron comes out ahead.
Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?
A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads, no hyper-threading. That 4x core advantage and 8x thread advantage explains most of the multi-core gap.
Q: What is the memory configuration difference?
A: The EPYC 7F32 uses eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Celeron G6900 uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5, but the benchmark database lists no memory bandwidth figure for it. The EPYC's memory subsystem is far more capable for server workloads.
Q: Which processor has a higher launch MSRP?
A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 has a launch MSRP of $2100. The Intel Celeron G6900 has a launch MSRP of $52. This is a massive price gap, but per the data, the EPYC also has a massive performance lead in every measured category.
Architecture Differences
The AMD EPYC 7F32 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process node, using the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename. It packs 15,200 million transistors across a 4x 74 mm² die configuration. This is a server/workstation part designed for high throughput. The Intel Celeron G6900 uses Intel's 10 nm process with the Alder Lake-S architecture. It has no listed transistor count or die size in the benchmark database, but it is clearly a much smaller and simpler chip.
The EPYC 7F32 features 8 cores with 16 threads, while the Celeron G6900 has just 2 cores and 2 threads. The EPYC's base clock is 3.70 GHz with a 3.90 GHz boost clock. The Celeron runs at 3.40 GHz base with no boost clock listed. In terms of cache, the EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache. The Celeron has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The EPYC's 128 MB total L3 is 32 times larger than the Celeron's 4 MB.
Memory support diverges sharply. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with a rated 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and ECC support. The Celeron uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5, has no memory bandwidth figure listed, and does not support ECC. For PCIe, the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Celeron offers Gen 5. The Celeron includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 710), whereas the EPYC has no integrated graphics. Both are on different sockets: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, and the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC is a server/workstation part, and the Celeron is a desktop part.
The Verdict
The data makes this a one-sided comparison. The AMD EPYC 7F32 wins all six benchmark comparisons, with deltas ranging from 417.8% to 419.1%. It is faster in both multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests. If you need raw compute for server or workstation workloads, where 8 cores, 16 threads, 128 MB of L3, and eight-channel memory matter, the EPYC 7F32 is the obvious choice from the data.
The Intel Celeron G6900, on the other hand, is a desktop part with 2 cores, 2 threads, and no ECC memory support. It has no benchmark wins against the EPYC. However, it does have integrated graphics and supports both DDR4 and DDR5, which the EPYC does not. The Celeron also has a much lower launch MSRP of $52 versus $2100 for the EPYC.
For a builder choosing between these two, the decision comes down to workload category. The data shows no scenario where the Celeron outperforms the EPYC in compute benchmarks. But the Celeron's integrated graphics and lower power footprint (46W TDP versus 180W) make it suitable for basic desktop tasks where the EPYC's server-class features are irrelevant. The EPYC is for heavy multi-threaded number crunching; the Celeron is for simple, low-cost desktop use.
Specification Differences
The EPYC 7F32 and Celeron G6900 differ in nearly every specification field. The EPYC has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Celeron has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, with the EPYC adding a 3.90 GHz boost clock while the Celeron has none listed. TDP is 180W for the EPYC and 46W for the Celeron. The socket is AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC, Intel Socket 1700 for the Celeron. Process node is 7 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel). The EPYC has 15,200 million transistors on a 4x 74 mm² die; the Celeron has no transistor or die size listed.
Cache configurations are completely different. The EPYC uses 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3 per die (128 MB total). The Celeron uses 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. Memory support: the EPYC is eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC; the Celeron is dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with no bandwidth figure and no ECC. PCIe: the EPYC has Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only); the Celeron has Gen 5. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Celeron has UHD Graphics 710. Market segments differ: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Launch dates are April 2020 for the EPYC and January 2022 for the Celeron. Launch MSRP is $2100 for the EPYC, $52 for the Celeron. Both have locked multipliers and are in active production.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the AMD EPYC 7F32 wins all six. The largest delta is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the EPYC scores 1,168 versus the Celeron's 225, a 419.1% difference. The smallest delta is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with the EPYC at 19,718 and the Celeron at 3,808, still a 417.8% lead.
In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 1,987 against the Celeron's 383, a 418.8% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 280 versus 54, a 418.5% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core has 8,281 versus 1,599, a 417.9% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,783 versus 537, a 418.2% delta.
The pattern is remarkably consistent. All deltas cluster tightly between 417.8% and 419.1%, indicating that the EPYC's advantage is roughly uniform across single-core and multi-core workloads. This is not a case where one chip wins in some tests and loses in others. The EPYC is approximately 4.2x to 4.3x faster in every Cinebench test listed. The Celeron's best relative performance is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it still trails by nearly 418%. Its worst relative performance is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the gap stretches to 419.1%.
Looking at the broader benchmark context, the EPYC 7F32 has an average benchmark score of 5,703, and its nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7351 (5,710, -0.1%), AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (5,730, -0.5%), Intel Core i9-7920X (5,673, 0.5%), and Intel Xeon W-2175 (5,770, -1.2%). The Celeron G6900 has an average benchmark score of 5,561, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i9-10900X (5,555, 0.1%), Intel Core i9-11900KB (5,587, -0.5%), Intel Atom x7433RE (5,601, -0.7%), and Intel Core i7-12700T (5,606, -0.8%). Both CPUs sit at the 61st percentile versus all CPUs, despite their vastly different profiles.
Where Each One Wins
The AMD EPYC 7F32 wins in every compute benchmark category in the benchmark database. It dominates multi-core workloads with an 8-core, 16-thread configuration, 128 MB of L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. For server virtualization, database processing, render farms, or heavy scientific computing, the EPYC is the clear choice based on the data. Its single-core performance is also superior, which is notable because server chips often sacrifice single-thread speed. Here, the EPYC is 418.2% faster than the Celeron in Cinebench R23 single-core.
The Intel Celeron G6900 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data. However, it has structural advantages that are not reflected in Cinebench scores. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 710, which means a basic desktop system can run without a discrete GPU. The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving builders flexibility in platform choice. Its 46W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 180W, which matters for compact or passively cooled builds. The Celeron also uses PCIe Gen 5, which is a newer standard than the EPYC's Gen 4.
For a use-case split: the EPYC 7F32 is for anyone who needs maximum compute throughput in a server or workstation environment. The data shows it is uniformly 4.2x faster in Cinebench tests. The Celeron G6900 is for basic desktop use, web browsing, office tasks, light media playback, where integrated graphics and low power draw are more important than raw multi-core scores. The Celeron's only listed benchmark wins outside Cinebench are in PassMark tests, but those are not part of the head-to-head comparison, and the EPYC has no PassMark data in the benchmark database. So based strictly on the provided comparison, the EPYC wins everywhere that both are measured.