Celeron J4025 vs Xeon E5-2680 v4

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 120 Watt
11.12
+1096%
Celeron J4025
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.93

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Celeron J4025 by a whopping 1096% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking7042526
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.982.67
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency8.768.80
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Gemini Lake Refresh (2019)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)4 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,745$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 has 12% better value for money than Celeron J4025.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025 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 cores14 (Tetradeca-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads282
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz2.9 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/sno data
Multiplier24no data
L1 cache448 KB56 KB (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB4 MB (shared)
L3 cache35 MBno data
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size306.18 mm293 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °C105 °C
Number of transistors4700 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA2011Intel BGA 1090
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4
Maximum memory size1.5 TBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel UHD Graphics 600 (250 - 700 MHz)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes406

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 E5-2680 v4 11.12
+1096%
Celeron J4025 0.93

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 E5-2680 v4 17668
+1096%
Celeron J4025 1477

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.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1021
+210%
Celeron J4025 329

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.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 6914
+1183%
Celeron J4025 539

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 3707
+58.6%
Celeron J4025 2337

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 30922
+579%
Celeron J4025 4556

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 8286
+222%
Celeron J4025 2575

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 18
+875%
Celeron J4025 2

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1657
+1020%
Celeron J4025 148

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 100
+29.9%
Celeron J4025 77

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1.13
+17.7%
Celeron J4025 0.96

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 9.4
+840%
Celeron J4025 1

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 6323
+708%
Celeron J4025 783

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Xeon E5-2680 v4 79
+646%
Celeron J4025 11

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Xeon E5-2680 v4 137
+157%
Celeron J4025 53

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.12 0.93
Recency 20 June 2016 4 November 2019
Physical cores 14 2
Threads 28 2
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 10 Watt

Xeon E5-2680 v4 has a 1095.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 600% more physical cores and 1300% more threads.

Celeron J4025, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and 1100% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4025 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron J4025 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Celeron J4025, 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 E5-2680 v4
Xeon E5-2680 v4
Intel Celeron J4025
Celeron J4025

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.


4.5 4184 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2680 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 129 votes

Rate Celeron J4025 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2680 v4 or Celeron J4025, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.