Xeon w5-2545 vs Celeron E3200

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron E3200
2009
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.53
Xeon w5-2545
2024
12 cores / 24 threads, 210 Watt
26.24
+4851%

Xeon w5-2545 outperforms Celeron E3200 by a whopping 4851% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2853183
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.8883.24
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.7711.83
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date30 August 2009 (15 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$52$889

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon w5-2545 has 2790% better value for money than Celeron E3200.

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545 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 cores2 (Dual-core)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads224
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz4.7 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB (shared)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB30 MB
Chip lithography45 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size82 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature74 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors228 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt210 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545 are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data2 TB
Max memory channelsno data4
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545.

PCIe version2.05.0
PCI Express lanesno data64

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Celeron E3200 0.53
Xeon w5-2545 26.24
+4851%

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.

Celeron E3200 839
Xeon w5-2545 41688
+4869%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 26.24
Recency 30 August 2009 24 August 2024
Physical cores 2 12
Threads 2 24
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 210 Watt

Celeron E3200 has 223.1% lower power consumption.

Xeon w5-2545, on the other hand, has a 4850.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads.

The Xeon w5-2545 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3200 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron E3200 is a desktop processor while Xeon w5-2545 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3200 and Xeon w5-2545, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron E3200
Celeron E3200
Intel Xeon w5-2545
Xeon w5-2545

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 76 votes

Rate Celeron E3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Xeon w5-2545 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E3200 or Xeon w5-2545, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.