Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Intel Xeon E3-1260L

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Xeon E3-1260L

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E3-1260L

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E3-1260L

Report a correction
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 2 MB 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Significantly better turbo clock speed 1,250 MHz vs 1,050 MHz Around 20% better turbo clock speed
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 6,534 vs 2,322 More than 2.8x better PassMark score
More threads 8 vs 2 6 more threads
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,642 vs 1,201 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better performance per watt 5.01 pt/W vs 3.69 pt/W More than 35% better performance per watt
Front view of Intel Celeron G1610T

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1610T

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 3.08 pt/$ vs 0.73 pt/$ Around 4.2x better performance per dollar
Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 36.56W More than 20% lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Apr, 2011 Release date over 1 years later
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 10.84 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 39.42 $/year More than 20% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E3-1260L vs Celeron G1610T

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Xeon E3-1260L  vs
Celeron G1610T 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2.3 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1155


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 21,333.32 MB/s
Maximum memory size 32,768 MB 32,768 MB


Xeon E3-1260L  vs
Celeron G1610T 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 2 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 24 23

integrated graphics

Label HD Graphics 2000 Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 2 3
GPU clock speed 650 MHz 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed 1,250 MHz 1,050 MHz

power consumption

TDP 45W 35W
Annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 39.42 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 5.01 pt/W 3.69 pt/W
Typical power consumption 36.56W 28.44W


Architecture DMI DMI
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 5,000 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Xeon E3-1260L
Report a correction
Intel Celeron G1610T
Report a correction


comments powered by Disqus