Celeron G6900TE vs Xeon Gold 6240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Gold 6240
2019
18 cores / 36 threads, 150 Watt
18.40
+1095%

Xeon Gold 6240 outperforms Celeron G6900TE by a whopping 1095% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking3322112
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.21no data
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon Goldno data
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Alder Lake-S (2022)
Release date2 April 2019 (5 years ago)4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,445no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE 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 cores18 (Octadeca-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads362
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz2.4 GHz
Bus typeDMI 3.0no data
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier26no data
L1 cache1.125 MB80K (per core)
L2 cache18 MB1.25 MB (per core)
L3 cache24.75 MB4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm10 nm
Maximum core temperature85 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE 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 configuration4 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA36471700
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX++
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
StatusLaunchedno data
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2933DDR4, DDR5 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth140.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics 710

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes48no 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.

Xeon Gold 6240 18.40
+1095%
Celeron G6900TE 1.54

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.

Xeon Gold 6240 28369
+1095%
Celeron G6900TE 2373

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.40 1.54
Recency 2 April 2019 4 January 2022
Physical cores 18 2
Threads 36 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 35 Watt

Xeon Gold 6240 has a 1094.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 800% more physical cores and 1700% more threads.

Celeron G6900TE, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 328.6% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Gold 6240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G6900TE in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon Gold 6240 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron G6900TE is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Gold 6240 and Celeron G6900TE, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon Gold 6240
Xeon Gold 6240
Intel Celeron G6900TE
Celeron G6900TE

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.5 10 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 9 votes

Rate Celeron G6900TE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Gold 6240 or Celeron G6900TE, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.