Xeon w7-2575X vs Celeron E1500

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron E1500
2008
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.39
Xeon w7-2575X
2024
22 cores / 44 threads, 250 Watt
38.66
+9813%

Xeon w7-2575X outperforms Celeron E1500 by a whopping 9813% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking301774
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data69.51
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency0.5714.63
Architecture codenameAllendale (2006−2009)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release dateNovember 2008 (16 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$63$1,689

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X 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 cores2 (Dual-core)22 (Docosa-Core)
Performance-coresno data22
Threads244
Base clock speed2.2 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz4.8 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (shared)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB45 MB
Chip lithography65 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size77 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature73 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data76 °C
Number of transistors105 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range0.85V-1.5Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt250 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching-no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
FSB parity-no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x-+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data2 TB
Max memory channelsno data4
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data64

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.

Celeron E1500 0.39
Xeon w7-2575X 38.66
+9813%

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.

Celeron E1500 626
Xeon w7-2575X 61402
+9709%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.39 38.66
Physical cores 2 22
Threads 2 44
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 250 Watt

Celeron E1500 has 284.6% lower power consumption.

Xeon w7-2575X, on the other hand, has a 9812.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 1000% more physical cores and 2100% more threads.

The Xeon w7-2575X is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E1500 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron E1500 is a desktop processor while Xeon w7-2575X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E1500 and Xeon w7-2575X, 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 Celeron E1500
Celeron E1500
Intel Xeon w7-2575X
Xeon w7-2575X

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.


2.9 49 votes

Rate Celeron E1500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon w7-2575X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron E1500 or Xeon w7-2575X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.