Celeron 2.30 vs Xeon X5698
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1842 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.58 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Northwood (2002−2004) |
| Release date | 14 February 2011 (13 years ago) | March 2003 (21 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 4.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 128 KB |
| L3 cache | 12288 KB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | 146 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 55 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | 1366 | 478 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 73 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR1, DDR2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 4 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 73 Watt |
Xeon X5698 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 2.30, on the other hand, has 78.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon X5698 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron 2.30 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5698 and Celeron 2.30, 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.
