Celeron M 360 vs Xeon 5150
Aggregate performance score
Xeon 5150 outperforms Celeron M 360 by a whopping 314% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2805 | 3319 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.56 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Celeron M |
| Power efficiency | 0.84 | 0.63 |
| Architecture codename | Woodcrest (2006) | Dothan (2004−2005) |
| Release date | June 2006 (18 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $16 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 1.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 400 MHz |
| L1 cache | 0 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 65 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | B2=1.0V-1.5V, G0=.85V-1.5V | 1.26V, 1.004V-1.292V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360 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 | no data |
| Socket | LGA771 | PPGA478, H-PBGA479 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 21 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | - |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | - |
| PAE | no data | 32 Bit |
| FSB parity | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | - |
| EPT | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | no data |
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 | 0.58 | 0.14 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 21 Watt |
Xeon 5150 has a 314.3% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron M 360, on the other hand, has 209.5% lower power consumption.
The Xeon 5150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron M 360 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon 5150 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron M 360 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 5150 and Celeron M 360, 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.
