Celeron 6205 vs Xeon X3330

VS

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2263not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Tiger Lake
Power efficiency1.32no data
Architecture codenameno dataTiger Lake U (2020)
Release date1 July 2008 (16 years ago)1 September 2020 (4 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205 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 GHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2/2 GHz
L1 cacheno data160 KB
L2 cacheno data2.5 MB
L3 cache6 MB L2 Cache4 MB
Chip lithography45 nm10 nm
Maximum core temperature71 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-13625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205 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.

SocketLGA775BGA1499
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR4

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs (400 MHz)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 July 2008 1 September 2020
Chip lithography 45 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron 6205 has an age advantage of 12 years, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Xeon X3330 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 6205 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3330 and Celeron 6205, 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 X3330
Xeon X3330
Intel Celeron 6205
Celeron 6205

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.


3.5 26 votes

Rate Xeon X3330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 1 vote

Rate Celeron 6205 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X3330 or Celeron 6205, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.