The EPYC 7F52 is at least 2x faster gaming CPU than the Celeron G3930. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Advantages of the EPYC 7F52
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 32 vs 2 threads
Advantages of the Celeron G3930
- Consumes up to 79% less energy – 51 vs 240 Watts
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU as it has integrated graphics
EPYC 7F52 vs Celeron G3930 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
EPYC 7F52
Apr 14th, 2020
Average FPS
206
100%
Min 1% FPS
143
100%
Price, $
Out of Stock
Value, $/FPS
Not Available
All items are out of stock.
EPYC 7F52 vs Celeron G3930 in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
The FPS you'll get in saved games, click on a game to change it
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The EPYC 7F52 vs Celeron G3930 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The EPYC 7F52 vs Celeron G3930 in core CPU performance specifications
EPYC 7F52
Apr 14th, 2020
Cores
16-core
100%
L3 Cache
256 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.9 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
3200 MHz
100%
Celeron G3930
Jan 3rd, 2017
Cores
2-core
12%
L3 Cache
2 MB
1%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
83%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
75%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
EPYC 7F52 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Celeron G3930 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Apr 14th, 2020 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
| Not Available | MSRP | Not Available |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| AMD Socket SP3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
| Rome | Codename | Kaby Lake |
| 240 W | Power Consumption | 51 W |
| Performance | ||
16 | Cores | 2 |
32 | Threads | 2 |
3.5 GHz | Base Frequency | 2.9 GHz |
| 3.9 GHz | Turbo Frequency | Non-Turbo |
256 MB | L3 Cache | 2 MB |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR4 @ 3200 MHz | RAM | DDR4 @ 2400 MHz |
| No | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 610 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
