Celeron 220 vs Xeon W3550
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W3550 outperforms Celeron 220 by a whopping 1462% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1902 | 3328 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.68 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 1.48 | 0.65 |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Conroe (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 9 August 2009 (15 years ago) | October 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $235 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 533 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | 77 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | 105 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1V-1.3375V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 19 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | + | - |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | - |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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 | 2.03 | 0.13 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 1 |
| Threads | 8 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 19 Watt |
Xeon W3550 has a 1461.5% higher aggregate performance score, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 220, on the other hand, has 584.2% lower power consumption.
The Xeon W3550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon W3550 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 220 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3550 and Celeron 220, 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.
