Intel Celeron G6900 vs Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 across every recorded Cinebench test. In the six head-to-head comparisons, the Celeron G6900 fails to take a single win. The margins are consistently large, hovering around 78.6 to 78.7 percent in the Xeon's favor across all tests.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 1796 against the Celeron's 383, a delta of negative 78.7 percent for the Celeron. The single-core R15 result tells a similar story: 253 versus 54, again a 78.7 percent gap. These are not close contests. The Xeon's advantage in the R15 suite is roughly four and a half times the Celeron's output.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The multicore run shows 7486 for the Xeon against 1599 for the Celeron, a 78.6 percent deficit for the smaller chip. In single-core R20, the Xeon posts 1056 while the Celeron manages 225, another 78.7 percent gap. The consistency of these deltas across different workload generations is striking. It suggests the relative performance difference is stable regardless of the rendering engine's version.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend. The Xeon's multicore score of 17826 dwarfs the Celeron's 3808, a 78.6 percent difference. Single-core R23 shows 2516 versus 537, a 78.7 percent gap. In every single test, the Xeon delivers more than four times the Celeron's score. The data does not show any workload where the Celeron narrows the gap meaningfully.

The average benchmark score in the database further contextualizes these results. The Celeron G6900 has an average benchmark score of 5561, while the Xeon E5-2699A v4 sits at 5259. Interestingly, the Celeron actually has a slightly higher average score across the full benchmark suite, despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test. This is because the Celeron's benchmark set includes PassMark tests where it records strong results, while the Xeon's recorded benchmarks are limited to Cinebench and Geekbench. The Celeron also holds a marginally better percentile ranking at 61 percent versus the Xeon's 60 percent.

When comparing against the nearest rivals in the database, the Celeron's 5561 average score places it within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core i9-10900X, which scores 5555. It trails the Core i9-11900KB by 0.5 percent and the Intel Atom x7433RE by 0.7 percent, while sitting 0.8 percent behind the Core i7-12700T. The Xeon's 5259 average is 0.1 percent ahead of the Core i5-14401E and 0.4 percent ahead of both the Core i7-11700B and Core i9-10850K, but it lags the Core i9-9900X by 0.8 percent. These nearest-rival comparisons show that both processors sit in similar overall performance tiers by average score, even though their workload characteristics differ enormously.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2699A v4 wins every recorded Cinebench test, both multicore and single-core. For anyone running CPU rendering workloads in Cinema 4D or similar applications that rely on Cinebench-style performance, the Xeon is the clear choice. The R23 multicore score of 17826 is particularly strong, indicating serious multi-threaded rendering capability.

The Celeron G6900, despite its head-to-head losses, has a higher average benchmark score of 5561 compared to the Xeon's 5259. This is driven by its PassMark results. The Celeron scores 44464 in PassMark data compression, 2235 in data encryption, 4201 in extended instructions, and 11956 in floating point math. It also posts 9577 in integer math, 4488 in multithread, 5149 in random string sorting, and a single-thread score of 2709. These PassMark numbers pull its average up considerably.

The Xeon has no recorded PassMark data in the database, only Cinebench and Geekbench results. Its Geekbench scores are 10118 multicore and 1020 single-core. Without PassMark comparisons, the Celeron's strengths in those specific tests cannot be directly weighed against the Xeon. The data only shows that the Celeron performs well in PassMark-style workloads, while the Xeon dominates in Cinebench rendering tests.

For single-threaded tasks, the Xeon still wins in Cinebench, but the Celeron's PassMark single-thread score of 2709 is substantial. The Xeon's Geekbench single-core score of 1020 is lower than the Celeron's PassMark single-thread figure, though these are different benchmark suites and not directly comparable. The safest interpretation is that the Xeon leads in rendering and heavily threaded workloads, while the Celeron shows competitive or better results in the PassMark test categories it was measured on.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different eras and design philosophies. The Celeron G6900 uses the Alder Lake architecture, specifically Alder Lake-S, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has 2 cores and 2 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock listed. The Xeon E5-2699A v4 uses the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-EP, on a 14 nm process. It packs 22 cores and 44 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz.

The Xeon's transistor count is listed at 7,200 million, with a die size of 456 mm². The Celeron's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The Xeon's massive core count is its defining feature, while the Celeron relies on newer process technology and higher base clock for its performance profile.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Celeron has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 55 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's L3 cache is more than thirteen times the Celeron's total L3 capacity, which helps feed its 22 cores.

Memory support also diverges. The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. The Xeon supports DDR4 in a quad-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s and full ECC support. The Xeon's memory bus width and ECC capability reflect its server-class heritage. The Celeron uses PCIe Gen 5, while the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes available from the CPU. The Celeron includes integrated UHD Graphics 710, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Celeron is marked as Active production status, while the Xeon is End-of-life.

The Celeron targets the desktop market segment, as does the Xeon, though the Xeon's socket is Intel Socket 2011-3 versus the Celeron's Intel Socket 1700. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 scores 17826 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Celeron G6900 scores 3808. The Xeon leads by 78.6 percent.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon winning all six Cinebench tests. The Celeron has zero wins in the direct comparison.

Q: Why does the Celeron have a higher average benchmark score than the Xeon?

A: The Celeron has an average benchmark score of 5561, while the Xeon averages 5259. The Celeron's score is boosted by strong PassMark results, including 44464 in data compression and 11956 in floating point math, while the Xeon's recorded benchmarks are limited to Cinebench and Geekbench.

Q: What is the core and thread difference between these processors?

A: The Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Xeon E5-2699A v4 has 22 cores and 44 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-2699A v4 supports ECC memory. The Celeron G6900 does not.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Celeron G6900 uses Intel Socket 1700. The Xeon E5-2699A v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads, while the Xeon E5-2699A v4 has 22 cores and 44 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Celeron and 2.40 GHz for the Xeon, with the Xeon adding a 3.60 GHz boost clock that the Celeron lacks.

Thermal design power differs significantly: 46 watts for the Celeron versus 145 watts for the Xeon. Sockets are incompatible, with the Celeron on Intel Socket 1700 and the Xeon on Intel Socket 2011-3. The architectures are from different generations, Alder Lake versus Broadwell, with process nodes of 10 nm and 14 nm respectively.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Celeron has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 55 MB shared L3. The Xeon also lists 7,200 million transistors and a 456 mm² die size, while neither figure is recorded for the Celeron.

Memory support shows the Celeron accepting both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, while the Xeon uses only DDR4 in quad-channel mode with a listed memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe generations differ, with the Celeron on Gen 5 and the Xeon on Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The Celeron includes integrated UHD Graphics 710; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Production status differs as well, with the Celeron Active and the Xeon End-of-life. Release dates are 2022-01-03 for the Celeron and 2016-10-24 for the Xeon. The launch MSRP for the Celeron is $52, and the launch MSRP for the Xeon is $4938.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for rendering workloads. The Xeon E5-2699A v4 dominates every Cinebench test, multicore and single-core, by roughly 78.7 percent. Anyone whose primary task is CPU rendering should choose the Xeon without hesitation. Its 22 cores and 44 threads provide the raw throughput that the 2-core Celeron cannot approach.

However, the Celeron G6900 has its own merits. Its average benchmark score of 5561 exceeds the Xeon's 5259, and its PassMark results in data compression, encryption, and math workloads are strong. The Celeron also uses a much newer process node, supports DDR5 memory, includes integrated graphics, and has a dramatically lower TDP of 46 watts. For light desktop tasks, basic productivity, or a system where integrated graphics are needed, the Celeron is the more practical choice.

The Xeon's ECC memory support and quad-channel memory bandwidth make it suited for workstation or server-adjacent roles where data integrity and memory throughput matter. Its end-of-life production status and higher power draw are worth noting, but the benchmark record shows it remains a capable rendering processor. The Celeron, by contrast, is an active product with a modest footprint, better suited to everyday computing where its PassMark strengths can shine. Pick the Xeon for heavy multi-threaded rendering, pick the Celeron for general desktop use with lower power demands.