Buy on Amazon
€20.16
In Stock
Availability
Availability
No items available
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — EPYC 7742 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing EPYC 7742 is 2438 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of AMD EPYC 7742
- Performs up to 13% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Celeron G1620 - 169 vs 150 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 128 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 76% less energy than AMD EPYC 7742 - 55 vs 225 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD EPYC 7742 doesn't have integrated graphics
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
150
88%
Value, €/FPS
€0.13/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Intel Celeron G1620 CPU Verwendeter 2-Kern-2-Thread-Desktop-Prozessor 2,7 GHz 2M 55W LGA1155
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 356 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
EPYC 7742
Server/Workstation • Aug 7th, 2019
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD EPYC 7742 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
Aug 7th, 2019 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| EPYC | Collection | Celeron |
| Rome | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| AMD Socket SP3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
64 | Cores | 2 |
128 | Threads | 2 |
| 2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
| 3.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 225 W | TDP | 55 W |
7 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 22.5x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
