Celeron G3900 vs Xeon E5440
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5440 outperforms Celeron G3900 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2039 | 2122 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.38 | 0.18 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | no data | Skylake (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 19 October 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $42 |
| Current price | $91 | $37 (0.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5440 has 111% better value for money than Celeron G3900.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | no data | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus support | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 12 MB L2 Cache | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 98.57 mm210.3 mm × 9.57 mm |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | LGA771 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 51 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| TSX | no data | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| FSB parity | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
Security technologies
Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | no data | - |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 34.1 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 510 |
| Max video memory | no data | 64 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 950 MHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over VGA | no data | N/A |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
Xeon E5440 outperforms Celeron G3900 by 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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 E5440 outperforms Celeron G3900 by 9% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Celeron G3900 outperforms Xeon E5440 by 61% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon E5440 outperforms Celeron G3900 by 6% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.53 | 1.41 |
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 19 October 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 51 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900.
Be aware that Xeon E5440 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron G3900 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5440 and Celeron G3900, 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.
