Celeron E3400 vs Xeon E5-2658

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2658
2012
8 cores / 16 threads, 95 Watt
3.90
+596%
Celeron E3400
2010
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.56

Xeon E5-2658 outperforms Celeron E3400 by a whopping 596% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14582830
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.383.72
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency3.810.80
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EP (2012)Wolfdale (2008−2010)
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)17 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,462$76

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron E3400 has 879% better value for money than Xeon E5-2658.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads162
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.6 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (shared)
L3 cache20480 KB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size435 mm282 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data74 °C
Number of transistors2,270 million228 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.3625V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400 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 configuration21
Socket2011LGA775
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR1, DDR2, DDR3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400.

PCIe version3.02.0

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.

Xeon E5-2658 3.90
+596%
Celeron E3400 0.56

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.

Xeon E5-2658 6073
+599%
Celeron E3400 869

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.90 0.56
Recency 6 March 2012 17 January 2010
Physical cores 8 2
Threads 16 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon E5-2658 has a 596.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron E3400, on the other hand, has 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2658 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2658 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron E3400 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2658 and Celeron E3400, 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.


Intel Xeon E5-2658
Xeon E5-2658
Intel Celeron E3400
Celeron E3400

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 4 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2658 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2658 or Celeron E3400, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.