Celeron M 420 vs Xeon L5240
Aggregate performance score
Xeon L5240 outperforms Celeron M 420 by a whopping 833% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon L5240 and Celeron M 420 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2567 | 3378 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 1.99 | 0.32 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Yonah (2005−2006) |
| Release date | 1 April 2008 (16 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon L5240 and Celeron M 420 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 | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 56 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | 1.0V-1.3V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon L5240 and Celeron M 420 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.
| Socket | LGA771 | PPGA478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 27 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon L5240 and Celeron M 420. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | - | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | - | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | - |
| FSB parity | - | - |
Security technologies
Xeon L5240 and Celeron M 420 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon L5240 and Celeron M 420 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | - |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.84 | 0.09 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 27 Watt |
Xeon L5240 has a 833.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 420, on the other hand, has 48.1% lower power consumption.
The Xeon L5240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 420 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon L5240 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron M 420 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon L5240 and Celeron M 420, 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.
