Celeron N3060 vs Xeon E5620
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5620 and Celeron N3060 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1736 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $35 | $107 |
| Current price | $49 (1.4x MSRP) | $243 (2.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5620 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 2.48 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 78 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5620 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 | FCLGA1366,LGA1366 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5620 and Celeron N3060. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| SIPP | no data | - |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 40 Bit | no data |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5620 and Celeron N3060 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5620 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 E5620 and Celeron N3060. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 288 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 3 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 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 E5620 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 E5620 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 E5620 and Celeron N3060.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 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 E5620 outperforms Celeron N3060 by 432% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 16 March 2010 | 1 April 2015 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Cost | $35 | $107 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 6 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5620 and Celeron N3060. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon E5620 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N3060 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5620 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.
