Xeon 6731E vs Celeron Dual-Core T3000
Primary details
Comparing Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E 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 Dual-Core | no data |
| Architecture codename | Penryn-1M (2009) | Sierra Forest (2024) |
| Release date | 1 May 2009 (15 years ago) | 3 June 2024 (less than a year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus rate | 800 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 4 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | no data | 96 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 107 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 84 °C |
| Number of transistors | 410 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | P (478) | 4710 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 250 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 |
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 Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 88 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 May 2009 | 3 June 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 96 |
| Threads | 2 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 250 Watt |
Celeron Dual-Core T3000 has 614.3% lower power consumption.
Xeon 6731E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 15 years, 4700% more physical cores and 4700% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Celeron Dual-Core T3000 is a notebook processor while Xeon 6731E is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron Dual-Core T3000 and Xeon 6731E, 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.
