Celeron N2840 vs Xeon X3380

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X3380
2009
95 Watt
1.62
+338%
Celeron N2840
2014
2 cores / 2 threads, 7 Watt
0.37

Xeon X3380 outperforms Celeron N2840 by a whopping 338% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking20883027
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.615.00
Architecture codenameno dataBay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date1 January 2009 (15 years ago)22 May 2014 (10 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon X3380 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 coresno data2 (Dual-core)
Threadsno data2
Base clock speed3.16 GHz2.16 GHz
Boost clock speedno data2.58 GHz
L1 cacheno data56K (per core)
L2 cacheno data512K (per core)
L3 cache12 MB L2 Cache0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperature71 °C100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X3380 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 configurationno data1
SocketLGA775FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle Statesno data+
Demand Based Switching-no data
Smart Connectno data+
FSB parity-no data

Security technologies

Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data21.32 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data792 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4
USB revisionno data3.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA portsno data2
Number of USB portsno data5

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 X3380 1.62
+338%
Celeron N2840 0.37

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 X3380 2568
+337%
Celeron N2840 587

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.62 0.37
Recency 1 January 2009 22 May 2014
Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 7 Watt

Xeon X3380 has a 337.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron N2840, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1257.1% lower power consumption.

The Xeon X3380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2840 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon X3380 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N2840 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3380 and Celeron N2840, 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 X3380
Xeon X3380
Intel Celeron N2840
Celeron N2840

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.


4.6 9 votes

Rate Xeon X3380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 651 vote

Rate Celeron N2840 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X3380 or Celeron N2840, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.