Xeon Gold 6326 vs Celeron 2.0
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in performance ranking | not rated | 219 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Ice Lake-SP (2021) |
Release date | September 2002 (22 years ago) | 6 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
Physical cores | 1 (Single-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
Threads | 1 | 32 |
Base clock speed | no data | 2.9 GHz |
Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
L1 cache | 8 KB | 64K (per core) |
L2 cache | 128 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
L3 cache | 0 KB | 24 MB (shared) |
Chip lithography | 130 nm | 10 nm |
Die size | 146 mm2 | no data |
Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 78 °C |
Number of transistors | 55 million | no data |
64 bit support | - | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 2 |
Socket | 478 | FCLGA4189 |
Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 185 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
AES-NI | - | + |
AVX | - | + |
vPro | no data | + |
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Speed Shift | no data | + |
Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
TSX | - | + |
Status | no data | Launched |
Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
TXT | no data | + |
EDB | no data | + |
SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326 are enumerated here.
VT-d | no data | + |
VT-x | no data | + |
EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR4-3200 |
Maximum memory size | no data | 6 TB |
Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326.
PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
Pros & cons summary
Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
Threads | 1 | 32 |
Chip lithography | 130 nm | 10 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 185 Watt |
Celeron 2.0 has 153.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon Gold 6326, on the other hand, has 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.0 is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6326 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.0 and Xeon Gold 6326, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.