Xeon 3.20 vs Celeron 2.80
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.80 and Xeon 3.20 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Gallatin (2003−2004) |
| Release date | November 2003 (21 year ago) | October 2003 (21 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.80 and Xeon 3.20 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 237 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 286 million |
| 64 bit support | - | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.80 and Xeon 3.20 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 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 97 Watt |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.80 and Xeon 3.20. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | no data |
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
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 97 Watt |
Celeron 2.80 has 32.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 2.80 and Xeon 3.20. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron 2.80 is a desktop processor while Xeon 3.20 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.80 and Xeon 3.20, 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.
