Intel Celeron G6900 vs Intel Xeon W-2170B Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-2170B and the Intel Celeron G6900 occupy opposite ends of Intel’s product spectrum, one a 14-core workstation processor from the Skylake-W generation and the other a dual-core desktop part from Alder Lake-S. The recorded benchmark data shows a complete sweep in favor of the Xeon across every Cinebench test, with the margins consistently above 440% in the head-to-head results. The Celeron G6900, however, brings its own set of modern platform attributes, including DDR5 memory support and integrated graphics, which are absent from the older Xeon part. This analysis walks through the measured scores, the architectural differences, and the practical takeaways from the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W-2170B wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons, and the Celeron G6900 records zero wins. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Xeon scores 8691 against the Celeron’s 1599, a delta of 443.5%. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R20 singlecore, where the Xeon’s 1226 beats the Celeron’s 225 by 444.9%. These percentages are not isolated anomalies; every test lands within a narrow band of 443.4% to 444.9%, indicating that the performance gap is consistent regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 2085 versus 383 for the Celeron, a 444.4% advantage. The single-core variant of R15 shows the same 444.4% delta, with scores of 294 and 54 respectively. Moving to the more demanding R23 tests, the Xeon produces 20693 in multicore against 3808 for the Celeron, and 2921 in singlecore against 537. The consistency of these deltas is notable: a 14-core processor with 28 threads and a 2.50 GHz base clock beating a 2-core, 2-thread part with a 3.40 GHz base clock by roughly 4.4 times in every scenario suggests that the core and thread count advantage overwhelms any clock speed or architectural efficiency gains the newer Celeron might offer.

The Xeon’s average benchmark score in the database is 5985, placing it at the 61st percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-9920X at 5917 (1.1% behind), the AMD EPYC 7451 at 5915 (1.2% behind), the AMD EPYC 7501 at 6128 (2.3% ahead), and the Intel Core i9-7940X at 6147 (2.6% ahead). The Celeron’s average benchmark score is 5561, also at the 61st percentile, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i9-10900X at 5555 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i9-11900KB at 5587 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Atom x7433RE at 5601 (0.7% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-12700T at 5606 (0.8% ahead). Both processors sit at the same percentile ranking, yet their raw scores differ by 424 points, and their rival sets could hardly be more different: the Xeon competes with high-core-count server and HEDT parts, while the Celeron’s rivals include a mix of desktop, mobile, and low-power embedded chips.

The Celeron G6900 does have additional PassMark benchmarks in the database that the Xeon lacks, so direct comparisons for those tests are not available. In PassMark single-thread, the Celeron scores 2709, and in PassMark multithread it scores 4488. Its PassMark data compression score is 44464, data encryption is 2235, extended instructions is 4201, find prime numbers is 34, floating point math is 11956, integer math is 9577, physics is 407, and random string sorting is 5149. These numbers provide context for what the Celeron can do on its own, but without corresponding Xeon scores in the same tests, they do not factor into the head-to-head comparison.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: for raw compute performance, the Intel Xeon W-2170B is the superior processor in every measured Cinebench workload. The 444.4% lead in R15 single-core is particularly striking because single-core performance typically favors newer architectures with higher clocks, yet the Xeon’s 4.30 GHz boost clock and older Skylake architecture still outpace the Celeron’s 3.40 GHz fixed clock and newer Alder Lake design by a wide margin. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, making it suitable for server and workstation workloads that require memory reliability and expansion capacity.

The Celeron G6900, meanwhile, is an active, current-generation desktop part with a 46 W TDP, integrated UHD Graphics 710, DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, PCIe Gen 5, and a launch MSRP of $52. It is a low-power, entry-level processor designed for basic desktop tasks, and its benchmark scores reflect that positioning. The Celeron’s average benchmark score of 5561 is only 7.1% lower than the Xeon’s 5985, but that average includes PassMark tests that are not part of the head-to-head set, so the two numbers are not directly comparable. In the six tests where both processors have recorded scores, the Xeon wins every one by a factor of roughly 5.4 to 5.5.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, the Xeon is the choice for multi-threaded rendering, compilation, scientific computing, or any workload that can use 14 cores and 28 threads. The Celeron is the choice for a basic desktop build where integrated graphics, low power draw, and modern platform features like DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5 matter more than compute throughput. The Xeon’s end-of-life production status and 140 W TDP are also recorded in the database, while the Celeron is active and draws 46 W, so for systems where power efficiency and current availability are priorities, the Celeron has a clear edge despite its lower scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2170B wins with a score of 20693 against the Celeron G6900’s 3808, a delta of 443.4%.

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two in the head-to-head tests?

A: The smallest gap is in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Xeon scores 8691 and the Celeron scores 1599, a delta of 443.5%.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Celeron G6900 includes UHD Graphics 710. The Xeon W-2170B has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Xeon W-2170B supports DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus and 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Celeron G6900 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon leads in all three single-core Cinebench tests: R15 single-core 294 versus 54 (444.4%), R20 single-core 1226 versus 225 (444.9%), and R23 single-core 2921 versus 537 (443.9%).

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Xeon W-2170B is end-of-life, with a release date of 2017-12-20. The Celeron G6900 is active, with a release date of 2022-01-03.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification recorded in the database. The Xeon W-2170B has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz; the Celeron has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock listed. TDP differs substantially: the Xeon is rated at 140 W, the Celeron at 46 W. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2066, while the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700.

Cache configurations are also different. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache. The Celeron has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support diverges: the Xeon supports DDR4 only with a quad-channel bus and 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory is supported by the Xeon but not the Celeron. PCIe also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only), while the Celeron provides Gen 5 with no lane count specified.

The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710. The Xeon’s market segment is Server/Workstation, and the Celeron’s is Desktop. The Xeon is end-of-life with a part number of SR3W3, while the Celeron is active with a part number of SRL67. The Celeron has a launch MSRP of $52; the Xeon has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon W-2170B is built on Intel’s Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-W codename, and uses a 14 nm process node from Intel. Its die size is recorded as 484 mm². The Celeron G6900 is built on the Alder Lake architecture, specifically Alder Lake-S, and uses a 10 nm process node from Intel; its die size is not recorded. The Xeon belongs to the Xeon W generation (Skylake-W), while the Celeron belongs to the Celeron generation (Alder Lake-S).

The core count difference of 12 cores and 26 threads is the most obvious architectural gap, but the cache hierarchy also reflects the different design goals. The Xeon’s 19.25 MB shared L3 cache is nearly five times the Celeron’s 4 MB shared L3, which aligns with the Xeon’s workstation positioning. The Celeron actually has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (80 KB and 1.25 MB per core respectively) compared to the Xeon (64 KB and 1 MB per core), a sign of the newer Alder Lake design’s focus on per-core efficiency.

The memory controller is another key architectural difference: the Xeon uses a quad-channel DDR4 interface with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Celeron uses a dual-channel interface that supports both DDR4 and DDR5, though no bandwidth figure is recorded. PCIe generations also differ, with the Xeon offering Gen 3 and the Celeron offering Gen 5. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature typical of server and workstation parts, while the Celeron does not. The Celeron’s integrated UHD Graphics 710 is a feature entirely absent from the Xeon. The Xeon’s 14 nm node and 484 mm² die reflect its 2017 release, while the Celeron’s 10 nm node reflects its 2022 release, yet the newer process does not overcome the core count deficit in the recorded benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-2170B wins every recorded Cinebench comparison, so its strengths are clear: multi-threaded rendering, 3D modeling, video encoding, and any workload that scales across 14 cores and 28 threads. Its quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support make it suitable for data-intensive workstation tasks where memory errors are unacceptable. The 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for multiple expansion cards, GPUs, or NVMe storage devices. The 4.30 GHz boost clock also keeps it competitive in single-threaded tasks despite its age, as shown by its consistent 444% lead in single-core tests.

The Intel Celeron G6900 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head set, but it wins in areas that the recorded data supports indirectly. Its 46 W TDP is less than a third of the Xeon’s 140 W, making it the more power-efficient choice for basic desktop systems. Its integrated UHD Graphics 710 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in simple display setups. DDR5 memory support and PCIe Gen 5 provide a modern platform foundation, and its active production status means it remains available for new builds. The Celeron’s PassMark results, such as 2709 in single-thread and 4488 in multithread, show it can handle light productivity tasks, though the database provides no Xeon scores for those tests to compare directly.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. The Xeon is for compute-heavy, reliability-focused workstation and server tasks where its 14 cores, ECC memory, and high memory bandwidth are essential. The Celeron is for a low-power, entry-level desktop where integrated graphics, modern memory support, and current availability take priority over raw performance. The benchmark data shows no overlap in their performance envelopes: the Xeon dominates compute, while the Celeron offers platform features and efficiency that the Xeon cannot match.