Xeon w5-3435X vs Celeron E3400
Aggregate performance score
Xeon w5-3435X outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 4914% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3108 | 245 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.72 | 16.31 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.33 | 4.02 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Manufacturer | Intel | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 17 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 15 February 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $76 | $1,589 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon w5-3435X has 338% better value for money than Celeron E3400.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3400 and Xeon w5-3435X 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 16 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 45 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | 4x 477 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3400 and Xeon w5-3435X 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 |
| Socket | LGA775 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 270 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon w5-3435X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron E3400 and Xeon w5-3435X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon w5-3435X 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 w5-3435X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon w5-3435X.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 112 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-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 | 0.51 | 25.57 |
| Recency | 17 January 2010 | 15 February 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 270 Watt |
Celeron E3400 has 315.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon w5-3435X, on the other hand, has a 4913.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads.
The Intel Xeon w5-3435X is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron E3400 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Xeon w5-3435X is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
