Xeon w9-3595X vs Celeron 2.20
Aggregate performance score
Xeon w9-3595X outperforms Celeron 2.20 by a whopping 69844% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3395 | 13 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 20.42 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.12 | 15.46 |
| Architecture codename | Northwood (2002−2004) | Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) |
| Release date | November 2002 (22 years ago) | 24 August 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $5,889 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 60 (Hexaconta-Core) |
| Performance-cores | no data | 60 |
| Threads | 1 | 120 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 4.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 8 KB | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 128 KB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 112.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 146 mm2 | 4x 477 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 81 °C |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X 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 | 478 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 385 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2 | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 112 |
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 | 0.09 | 62.95 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 60 |
| Threads | 1 | 120 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 385 Watt |
Celeron 2.20 has 427.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon w9-3595X, on the other hand, has a 69844.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 5900% more physical cores and 11900% more threads.
The Xeon w9-3595X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2.20 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron 2.20 is a desktop processor while Xeon w9-3595X is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 2.20 and Xeon w9-3595X, 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.
