Celeron G4900 vs Xeon X3450
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X3450 outperforms Celeron G4900 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3450 and Celeron G4900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2023 | 2156 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.51 | 2.95 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.79 | 2.78 |
| Architecture codename | Lynnfield (2009−2010) | Coffee Lake (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 8 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 3 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $241 | $42 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron G4900 has 478% better value for money than Xeon X3450.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3450 and Celeron G4900 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 | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 296 mm2 | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 73 °C | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 774 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3450 and Celeron G4900 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1156,LGA1156 | 1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 51 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3450 and Celeron G4900. 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 X3450 and Celeron G4900 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 X3450 and Celeron G4900 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3450 and Celeron G4900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Intel UHD Graphics 610 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3450 and Celeron G4900.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.80 | 1.50 |
| Recency | 8 September 2009 | 3 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 51 Watt |
Xeon X3450 has a 20% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Celeron G4900, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 86.3% lower power consumption.
The Xeon X3450 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G4900 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon X3450 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron G4900 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3450 and Celeron G4900, 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.
