Xeon E5-2637 vs Celeron E3400
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2637 outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 244% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2854 | 1993 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.72 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.79 | 2.21 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) |
| Release date | 17 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $76 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 5120 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | 294 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | 70 °C |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | 1,270 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637 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 | 2 |
| Socket | LGA775 | FCLGA2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
Security technologies
Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 384 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 40 |
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 | 0.54 | 1.86 |
| Recency | 17 January 2010 | 6 March 2012 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 80 Watt |
Celeron E3400 has 23.1% lower power consumption.
Xeon E5-2637, on the other hand, has a 244.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon E5-2637 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3400 in performance tests.
Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-2637 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Xeon E5-2637, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
