Xeon Bronze 3106 vs Celeron E3400
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Bronze 3106 outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 560% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2827 | 1487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.72 | 4.30 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon Bronze |
| Power efficiency | 0.80 | 4.03 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Skylake (server) (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 17 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 11 July 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $76 | $306 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon Bronze 3106 has 16% better value for money than Celeron E3400.
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 17 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | 8 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 11 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | 77 °C |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | 8,000 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106 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 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | LGA775 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 85 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106. 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) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR4-2133 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 768 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 102.403 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 48 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.57 | 3.76 |
| Recency | 17 January 2010 | 11 July 2017 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 2 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 85 Watt |
Celeron E3400 has 30.8% lower power consumption.
Xeon Bronze 3106, on the other hand, has a 559.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon Bronze 3106 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3400 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Xeon Bronze 3106 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Xeon Bronze 3106, 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.
