Xeon E-2124G vs Celeron 2.30
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1282 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 16.13 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon E |
| Power efficiency | no data | 6.17 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Coffee Lake-S (2017−2018) |
| Release date | March 2003 (21 year ago) | 12 July 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $213 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 34 |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | 478 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 71 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G 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 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |
| Max video memory | no data | 128 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.15 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over VGA | no data | N/A |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 4 |
| Threads | 1 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 71 Watt |
Xeon E-2124G has 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 2.8% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.30 is a desktop processor while Xeon E-2124G is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.30 and Xeon E-2124G, 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.
