Celeron J3455E vs Xeon X3470

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X3470
2009
4 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
2.07
+48.9%

Xeon X3470 outperforms Celeron J3455E by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18912218
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency2.0513.10
Release date1 July 2009 (15 years ago)1 July 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)no data
Threads84
Base clock speed2.93 GHz1.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz2.3 GHz
L3 cache8 MB Intel® Smart Cache2 MB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature73 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E 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 configuration11
SocketFCLGA1156,LGA1156no data
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE36 Bitno data

Security technologies

Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
Identity Protection-+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333DDR3L/LPDDR3 up to 1866 MT/s; LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s
Maximum memory size32 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics 500
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data750 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes166

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 X3470 2.07
+48.9%
Celeron J3455E 1.39

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 X3470 3269
+49.1%
Celeron J3455E 2193

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.07 1.39
Recency 1 July 2009 1 July 2019
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 10 Watt

Xeon X3470 has a 48.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.

Celeron J3455E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 850% lower power consumption.

The Xeon X3470 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3455E in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon X3470 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron J3455E is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3470 and Celeron J3455E, 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 X3470
Xeon X3470
Intel Celeron J3455E
Celeron J3455E

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.


4.3 738 votes

Rate Xeon X3470 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 2 votes

Rate Celeron J3455E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X3470 or Celeron J3455E, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.