Celeron 420 vs Xeon X5260
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2621 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 0.92 | no data |
| Architecture codename | no data | Conroe-L (2007−2008) |
| Release date | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) | June 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $23 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420 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 | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | no data | 77 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 66 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 60 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 105 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | 1V-1.3375V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420 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 |
| Socket | LGA771 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Demand Based Switching | + | - |
| FSB parity | - | - |
Security technologies
Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | - |
| VT-x | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 35 Watt |
Xeon X5260 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 420, on the other hand, has 128.6% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon X5260 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 420 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5260 and Celeron 420, 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.
