Celeron N3060 vs Xeon E5-2680 v4
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 633 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.66 | no data |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Xeon (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell-EP (2016) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 10 March 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,745 | $107 |
| Current price | $126 (0.1x MSRP) | $243 (2.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 28 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 2.48 GHz |
| Bus support | 9.6 GT/s / QPI | no data |
| L1 cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 3.5 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 35 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 306 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 86 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4700 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060 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 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | no data |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| TSX | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| Status | Launched | Launched |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 1.5 TB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 600 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | 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.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 2592% in Passmark.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 193% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 1190% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 2027% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 2186% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 163% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 157% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 1989% in TrueCrypt AES.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 1351% in x264 encoding pass 2.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 381% in x264 encoding pass 1.
Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 1479% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.
Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 149% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 1056% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 172% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 March 2016 | 1 April 2015 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 2 |
| Threads | 28 | 2 |
| Cost | $1745 | $107 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 6 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N3060 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron N3060, 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.
