Celeron 1000M vs Xeon E5-2630
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2630 outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 473% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1467 | 2746 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.39 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 3.82 | 1.81 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $74 | $86 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 7.2 GT/s | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 15360 KB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 77 °C | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | G2 (988B) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 384 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
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 | 3.84 | 0.67 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 20 January 2013 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 2 |
| Threads | 12 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 35 Watt |
Xeon E5-2630 has a 473.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads.
Celeron 1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-2630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2630 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 1000M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2630 and Celeron 1000M, 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.
