Xeon W-3335 vs Celeron P1053
Primary details
Comparing Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 199 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.36 |
| Architecture codename | Jasper Forest (2010) | Ice Lake-W (2021) |
| Release date | 12 February 2010 (14 years ago) | 29 July 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335 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) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.33 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 78 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335 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 | 1366 | FCLGA4189 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 250 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 February 2010 | 29 July 2021 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
| Threads | 2 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 250 Watt |
Celeron P1053 has 733.3% lower power consumption.
Xeon W-3335, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, 1500% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 350% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron P1053 and Xeon W-3335, 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.
