Celeron N6211 vs Xeon X3430
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X3430 outperforms Celeron N6211 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2183 | 2212 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.41 | 3.33 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Elkhart Lake |
| Power efficiency | 1.44 | 20.53 |
| Architecture codename | Lynnfield (2009−2010) | Elkhart Lake (2022) |
| Release date | 8 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 17 July 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189 | $54 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron N6211 has 712% better value for money than Xeon X3430.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211 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 | 2.4 GHz | 1.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 296 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 70 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 73 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 774 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | FCLGA1156,LGA1156 | BGA1493 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) (250 - 750 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 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 | 1.45 | 1.41 |
| Recency | 8 September 2009 | 17 July 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 6 Watt |
Xeon X3430 has a 2.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Celeron N6211, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, a 350% more advanced lithography process, and 1483.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211.
Be aware that Xeon X3430 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron N6211 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3430 and Celeron N6211, 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.
