Xeon w9-3575X vs Celeron G1620

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking	2479	30
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.05	33.96
Market segment	Desktop processor	Server
Power efficiency	1.70	14.48
Architecture codename	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date	3 December 2012 (12 years ago)	24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$208	$3,789

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon w9-3575X has 67820% better value for money than Celeron G1620.

Detailed specifications

Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X 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)	44
Threads	2	88
Base clock speed	2.7 GHz	2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed	2.7 GHz	4.8 GHz
Bus rate	5 GT/s	no data
L1 cache	64 KB (per core)	80 KB (per core)
L2 cache	256 KB (per core)	2 MB (per core)
L3 cache	2 MB (shared)	97.5 MB
Chip lithography	22 nm	Intel 7 nm
Die size	94 mm2	4x 477 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)	65 °C	79 °C
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	no data
Unlocked multiplier	-	+

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X 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	FCLGA1155	FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	340 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensions	Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2	Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI	-	+
AVX	+	+
vPro	no data	+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)	+	+
Speed Shift	no data	+
My WiFi	-	no data
Turbo Boost Technology	-	2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology	-	+
TSX	-	+
Idle States	+	no data
Thermal Monitoring	+	-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0	no data	+
Deep Learning Boost	-	+

Security technologies

Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	-	+
EDB	+	+
Secure Key	-	no data
SGX	no data	-
OS Guard	no data	+
Anti-Theft	-	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X are enumerated here.

VT-d	-	+
VT-x	+	+
EPT	+	+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3	DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size	32 GB	4 TB
Max memory channels	2	8
Maximum memory bandwidth	21 GB/s	no data
ECC memory support	+	+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card	Intel HD Graphics for 3rd Generation Intel Processors	N/A
Graphics max frequency	1.05 GHz	no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported

3

no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X.

PCIe version	2.0	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.

---

Pros & cons summary

---

Performance score	0.99	52.02
Recency	3 December 2012	24 August 2024
Physical cores	2	44
Threads	2	88
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	340 Watt

---

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G1620 and Xeon w9-3575X, 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.

---