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!
VS
Front view of Intel Celeron N3150

Intel Celeron N3150

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon L5310

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon L5310

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 2 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.3 GHz vs 1.75 GHz More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark (Single core) score 641 vs 470 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
Front view of Intel Celeron N3150

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N3150

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 4.88W vs 40.63W 8.3x lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per watt 10.68 pt/W vs 1.65 pt/W Around 6.5x better performance per watt
Newer Jan, 2015 vs Mar, 2007 Release date over 7 years later
Significantly better performance per dollar 0.6 pt/$ vs 0.3 pt/$ Around 2x better performance per dollar
Much lower annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year vs 12.04 $/year 8.3x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year vs 43.8 $/year 8.3x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L5310 vs Celeron N3150

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon L5310  vs
Celeron N3150 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 50W 6W
Annual home energy cost 12.04 $/year 1.45 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 43.8 $/year 5.26 $/year
Performance per watt 1.65 pt/W 10.68 pt/W
Typical power consumption 40.63W 4.88W

details

Xeon L5310  vs
Celeron N3150 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 8 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 2 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.3 GHz 1.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz 1.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.3 GHz 1.75 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 320 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Xeon L5310
Report a correction
Intel Celeron N3150
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus