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

Intel Xeon W3680

Front view of Intel Xeon W3680
Front view of Intel Celeron U3405

Intel Celeron U3405

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon W3680

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon W3680

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.33 GHz vs 1.06 GHz Around 3.2x higher clock speed
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly more l3 cache 12 MB vs 2 MB 6x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per dollar 1.38 pt/$ vs 0.26 pt/$ More than 5.2x better performance per dollar
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.51 GHz vs 1.07 GHz Around 4.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better PassMark score 9,211 vs 684 Around 13.5x better PassMark score
More threads 12 vs 2 10 more threads
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Much better performance per watt 6.29 pt/W vs 1.55 pt/W More than 4x better performance per watt
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.85 GHz vs 1.07 GHz More than 4.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron U3405

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron U3405

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 14.63W vs 105.63W 7.2x lower typical power consumption
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year vs 31.32 $/year 7.2x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year vs 113.88 $/year 7.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.33 MB/core More than 50% more l2 cache per core
Newer Aug, 2010 vs Mar, 2010 Release date 4 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon W3680 vs Celeron U3405

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon W3680
9,211
Celeron U3405
684

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Xeon W3680  vs
Celeron U3405 
Clock speed 3.33 GHz 1.06 GHz
Cores Hexa core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1366
BGA 1288

features
Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption
TDP 130W 18W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 4.34 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 15.77 $/year
Performance per watt 6.29 pt/W 1.55 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 14.63W

bus
Architecture QPI DMI
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 6,400 MT/s 2,500 MT/s

details

 Xeon W3680  vs
Celeron U3405 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 2
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 12 MB 2 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 25 14

overclocking
Overclocked clock speed 4.51 GHz 1.07 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.85 GHz 1.07 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.51 GHz 1.07 GHz

integrated graphics
GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 166 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 500 MHz

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
DDR3
Channels Triple Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 31,999.98 MB/s 17,066.66 MB/s
Maximum memory size 24,576 MB 8,192 MB
Intel Xeon W3680
Report a correction
Intel Celeron U3405
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss