Xeon E5-2670 v4 vs Celeron 827E
Primary details
Comparing Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Xeon E5 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| Release date | no data | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4 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) | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 28 |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus support | 4 × 5 GT/s | 2 × 9.6 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | 3.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 1.5 MB | 35 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 131 mm2 | 306.18 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 504 Million | 4700 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4 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 (Uniprocessor) | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | no data | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-1066 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 1,536 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21.335 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 40 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 14 |
| Threads | 1 | 28 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 120 Watt |
Celeron 827E has 605.9% lower power consumption.
Xeon E5-2670 v4, on the other hand, has 1300% more physical cores and 2700% more threads, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron 827E is a notebook processor while Xeon E5-2670 v4 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 827E and Xeon E5-2670 v4, 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.
