Celeron E3400 vs Opteron 6276
Aggregate performance score
Opteron 6276 outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 606% 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 | 1673 | 3123 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.66 | 3.72 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 3.36 | 0.84 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Interlagos (2011−2012) | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| Release date | 14 November 2011 (14 years ago) | 17 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | $76 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron E3400 has 124% better value for money than Opteron 6276.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Opteron 6276 and Celeron E3400 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB (per module) | 1 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (per die) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 2x 315 mm2 | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,400 million | 228 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 6276 and Celeron E3400 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 | 4 | 1 |
| Socket | G34 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 6276 and Celeron E3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| FMA | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Opteron 6276 and Celeron E3400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 6276 and Celeron E3400 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 6276 and Celeron E3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 6276 and Celeron E3400.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
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 | 3.60 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 14 November 2011 | 17 January 2010 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 65 Watt |
Opteron 6276 has a 605.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron E3400, on the other hand, has 76.9% lower power consumption.
The AMD Opteron 6276 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Celeron E3400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Opteron 6276 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron E3400 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
