Key Differences
In short — EPYC 7551P outperforms Celeron G1610T on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing EPYC 7551P is 1669 days newer than Celeron G1610T.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610T
- Consumes up to 81% less energy than AMD EPYC 7551P - 35 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD EPYC 7551P doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD EPYC 7551P
- Performs up to 17% better in Dirt 5 than Celeron G1610T - 158 vs 135 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610T - 64 vs 2 threads
Dirt 5
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Celeron G1610T
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
EPYC 7551P
Server/Workstation • Jun 29th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610T | vs | AMD EPYC 7551P |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 29th, 2017 |
| Celeron | Collection | EPYC |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Naples |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| 2 | Cores | 32 |
| 2 | Threads | 64 |
2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.0 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 180 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
23.0x | Multiplier | 20.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
