Celeron N2840 vs Xeon E3-1270
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1559 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.13 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 3.99 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 3 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 22 May 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $369 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.58 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 56K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 216 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840 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 | LGA1155 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 7.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| 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 |
| Smart Connect | no data | + |
| FDI | - | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 21.32 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | - | - |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 792 MHz |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 and 2.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 3 April 2011 | 22 May 2014 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 7 Watt |
Xeon E3-1270 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron N2840, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1042.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon E3-1270 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N2840 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1270 and Celeron N2840, 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.
