Celeron N3060 vs Xeon L5410
Aggregate performance score
Xeon L5410 outperforms Celeron N3060 by a whopping 190% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2335 | 2988 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 2.31 | 6.62 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 15 January 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | no data | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2.48 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | IDI |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 12 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 57 °C | 90 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | LGA771 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| FSB parity | + | no data |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) (320 - 700 MHz) |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 600 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | 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 | 1.22 | 0.42 |
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 15 January 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 6 Watt |
Xeon L5410 has a 190.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron N3060, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.
The Xeon L5410 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N3060 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon L5410 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N3060 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon L5410 and Celeron N3060, 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.
