Celeron E3400 vs Xeon X3230

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X3230
2007
95 Watt
1.29
+135%
Celeron E3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.55

Xeon X3230 outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 135% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking22722832
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.72
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency1.290.80
Architecture codenameno dataWolfdale (2008−2010)
Release date1 July 2007 (17 years ago)17 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$76

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400 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 coresno data2 (Dual-core)
Threadsno data2
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speedno data2.6 GHz
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data1 MB (shared)
L3 cache8 MB L2 Cache0 KB
Chip lithography65 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data82 mm2
Maximum core temperature60 °C74 °C
Number of transistorsno data228 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400 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 configurationno data1
SocketLGA775LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Demand Based Switching-no data
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT--
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR1, DDR2, DDR3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400.

PCIe versionno data2.0

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 X3230 1.29
+135%
Celeron E3400 0.55

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 X3230 2052
+136%
Celeron E3400 869

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.29 0.55
Recency 1 July 2007 17 January 2010
Chip lithography 65 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon X3230 has a 134.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron E3400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Xeon X3230 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon X3230 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron E3400 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3230 and Celeron E3400, 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 X3230
Xeon X3230
Intel Celeron E3400
Celeron E3400

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.


2.6 25 votes

Rate Xeon X3230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X3230 or Celeron E3400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.