Celeron E3500 vs Xeon E5335
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5335 outperforms Celeron E3500 by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2475 | 2798 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.99 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.15 | 0.86 |
| Architecture codename | Clovertown (2006−2007) | Wolfdale (2008−2010) |
| Release date | 14 November 2006 (18 years ago) | 29 August 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $62 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500 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 | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (per die) | 1 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 2x 143 mm2 | 82 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 74 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 66 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 582 million | 228 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| VID voltage range | 1V-1.5V | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | LGA771,PLGA771 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
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 | 0.99 | 0.60 |
| Recency | 14 November 2006 | 29 August 2010 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon E5335 has a 65% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron E3500, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 23.1% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5335 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron E3500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5335 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron E3500 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5335 and Celeron E3500, 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.
