Xeon D-2876NT vs Celeron M 330
Primary details
Comparing Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT 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 | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Celeron M | no data |
| Architecture codename | Banias (2003) | no data |
| Release date | no data (2024 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 400 MHz | no data |
| L3 cache | 512 KB L2 | 20 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 1.356V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT 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.
| Socket | PPGA478 | FCBGA2579 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24.5 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | - | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 32 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 32 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 24 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 4 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 100 Watt |
Celeron M 330 has 316.7% lower power consumption.
Xeon D-2876NT, on the other hand, has 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron M 330 is a notebook processor while Xeon D-2876NT is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron M 330 and Xeon D-2876NT, 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.
