Celeron N2840 vs Xeon E5-2697 v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2697 v2 outperforms Celeron N2840 by a whopping 2330% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 856 | 3041 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.96 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Xeon (Desktop) | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 6.54 | 5.00 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,723 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 24 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2.58 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 86 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840 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) | 130 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840. 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 | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 768 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 21.32 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 792 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
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.
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.
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.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.99 | 0.37 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 22 May 2014 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 2 |
| Threads | 24 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 7 Watt |
Xeon E5-2697 v2 has a 2329.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads.
Celeron N2840, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and 1757.1% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-2697 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2840 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2697 v2 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N2840 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Celeron N2840, 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.
