Intel Celeron G6900 vs Intel Xeon W-2175 Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-2175 and Intel Celeron G6900 occupy opposite ends of the desktop and workstation spectrum, but the benchmark database records both with the same overall percentile ranking. The Xeon W-2175 is a 14-core server-class processor from the Skylake generation, while the Celeron G6900 is a 2-core desktop part from the Alder Lake generation. Their recorded average benchmark scores are close, 5770 for the Xeon and 5561 for the Celeron, but that average masks a complete mismatch in raw compute performance. The Xeon wins every single recorded head-to-head test, with margins that range from roughly 424% to 425% across all six Cinebench workloads. The Celeron, however, counters with a much lower power draw, a newer process node, and integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the consistency of the Xeon’s dominance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 2010 against the Celeron’s 383, a delta of 424.8%. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 283 for the Xeon versus 54 for the Celeron, a 424.1% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 8379 multicore and 1182 single-core, while the Celeron manages 1599 and 225, respectively. Those deltas are 424% and 425.3%. In Cinebench R23, the gap persists: the Xeon reaches 19951 multicore and 2816 single-core, compared to the Celeron’s 3808 and 537, with deltas of 423.9% and 424.4%. Across all six tests, the Xeon’s smallest winning margin is 423.9%, and its largest is 425.3%. There is no overlap, no close call, and no workload where the Celeron comes within even a third of the Xeon’s output.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this. The Xeon’s average is 5770, while the Celeron’s is 5561, a difference of roughly 209 points. That difference is small relative to the head-to-head deltas because the Celeron’s PassMark results, which include data compression, encryption, and integer math, are not part of the shared Cinebench suite. The Celeron’s PassMark data shows a single-thread score of 2709 and a multithread score of 4488, but those numbers do not compare directly to the Xeon’s Cinebench results. When the database pairs the two CPUs head-to-head, it only uses the six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon wins all six. The data records 6 wins for the Xeon and 0 for the Celeron in this matchup.

The Xeon’s nearest rivals in the database are all server or high-end desktop parts. The Intel Xeon E-2388G has an average score of 5805, which is 0.6% higher than the Xeon W-2175. The AMD EPYC 7401P scores 5814, a 0.8% advantage. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X scores 5730, which is 0.7% lower, and the AMD EPYC 7351 scores 5710, which is 1.1% lower. The Celeron’s nearest rivals are a different group entirely. The Intel Core i9-10900X scores 5555, which is 0.1% lower than the Celeron. The Intel Core i9-11900KB scores 5587, a 0.5% advantage. The Intel Atom x7433RE scores 5601, 0.7% higher, and the Intel Core i7-12700T scores 5606, 0.8% higher. These comparisons show that the Celeron sits in a performance band populated by older high-end desktop chips and low-power parts, while the Xeon sits in a band of workstation and server processors.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different buyer profiles. If the workload is multi-threaded rendering, simulation, or any task that scales with cores and threads, the Xeon W-2175 is the only choice. Its 14 cores and 28 threads produce Cinebench R23 multicore scores that are 424% higher than the Celeron’s. Even in single-threaded tasks, where the Celeron’s newer Alder Lake architecture might be expected to help, the Xeon still leads by 424% in R15 single-core and 425.3% in R20 single-core. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost of 4.30 GHz, while the Celeron runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz with no boost clock listed. The Xeon’s higher boost clock, combined with its larger cache and memory bandwidth, explains why it wins even the single-core tests.

The Celeron G6900 makes sense only for basic desktop tasks where the Xeon’s 140-watt TDP is impractical. The Celeron draws 46 watts, less than a third of the Xeon’s power envelope. It also includes UHD Graphics 710, so a system built around it needs no separate graphics card for display output. The Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, so any Xeon system requires a discrete GPU. The Celeron’s production status is active, while the Xeon is end-of-life. For a new low-power build, the Celeron is the only one of the two that is still in production. For raw compute, the Xeon is the only one that delivers server-class results.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon W-2175 uses the Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process, with the Skylake-W codename. Its die size is 484 mm², and it uses the Intel Socket 2066. The Celeron G6900 uses the Alder Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, with the Alder Lake-S codename. Its socket is Intel Socket 1700. The Xeon is a server and workstation part, while the Celeron is a desktop part. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Celeron supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for it. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Celeron does not. The Xeon has 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Celeron has PCIe Gen 5 support, though no lane count is recorded.

The cache layouts differ substantially. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache 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 only 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s larger L3 pool is essential for its 14-core workload, while the Celeron’s smaller cache reflects its 2-core design. The Xeon’s process node is older at 14 nm, but its die is much larger at 484 mm², which accommodates the extra cores. The Celeron’s 10 nm process is denser, but the database does not list its die size.

The Xeon was released in October 2017, while the Celeron was released in January 2022. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $1947. The Celeron’s launch MSRP was $52. Both CPUs have locked multipliers, so neither supports user overclocking. The Xeon’s part number is SR3W2, and the Celeron’s is SRL67. The Xeon’s generation is listed as Xeon W (Skylake-W), and the Celeron’s generation is Celeron (Alder Lake-S). The Xeon’s market segment is server and workstation, while the Celeron’s is desktop.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2175 has 14 cores and 28 threads. The Intel Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Xeon has 12 more cores and 26 more threads.

Q: Does the Celeron G6900 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Celeron G6900 includes UHD Graphics 710. The Xeon W-2175 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for any display output with the Xeon.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon W-2175 supports ECC memory. The Celeron G6900 does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for workstation and server workloads where data integrity is critical.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon W-2175 uses a quad-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Celeron G6900 uses a dual-channel bus, but the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it. The Xeon’s memory subsystem is significantly wider.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon W-2175 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Celeron G6900 has no boost clock listed in the database; its base clock is 3.40 GHz.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: No. The Xeon W-2175 is marked as end-of-life. The Celeron G6900 is marked as active and is still in production.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W-2175 wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score of 2010 is more than five times the Celeron’s 383. In Cinebench R23, the Xeon scores 19951, while the Celeron scores 3808. The Xeon’s 28 threads allow it to handle heavily parallel workloads, and its 19.25 MB of shared L3 cache reduces contention between cores. The Xeon also wins in single-threaded tests, despite the Celeron’s newer architecture and higher base clock. The Xeon’s 4.30 GHz boost clock and its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches contribute to that result.

The Celeron G6900 wins in areas that are not captured by the Cinebench suite. It has a 46-watt TDP, which is 94 watts lower than the Xeon’s 140-watt TDP. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving builders more flexibility in platform choice. It has PCIe Gen 5 support, which is newer than the Xeon’s PCIe Gen 3. It includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its production status is active, so it remains available for new builds. The Xeon’s production status is end-of-life, meaning it is no longer manufactured.

The Celeron’s average benchmark score of 5561 places it near the Intel Core i9-10900X, which scores 5555, and the Intel Core i9-11900KB, which scores 5587. These are not typical comparisons for a low-end Celeron, but the database records them as nearest rivals because of the average score alignment. This indicates that the Celeron, despite its 2-core design, performs in a similar average range due to its PassMark results in data compression, encryption, and math operations. Those PassMark tests are not part of the head-to-head comparison, so they do not affect the Xeon’s 6-0 win record.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Xeon has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the Celeron has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Celeron’s base clock is 3.40 GHz with no boost clock. The Xeon has a TDP of 140 watts, and the Celeron has a TDP of 46 watts. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2066, and the Celeron uses Intel Socket 1700. The Xeon is built on a 14 nm process with a die size of 484 mm², and the Celeron is built on a 10 nm process with no die size recorded.

The cache hierarchy is different. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3. The Celeron has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory on a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Celeron supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth recorded. The Xeon supports ECC memory, and the Celeron does not. The Xeon has 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Celeron has PCIe Gen 5 with no lane count listed. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, and the Celeron includes UHD Graphics 710.

The Xeon’s market segment is server and workstation, while the Celeron’s is desktop. The Xeon was released in October 2017 with a launch MSRP of $1947, and it is end-of-life. The Celeron was released in January 2022 with a launch MSRP of $52, and it is active. The Xeon’s part number is SR3W2, and the Celeron’s is SRL67. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon’s architecture is Skylake with the Skylake-W codename, and the Celeron’s architecture is Alder Lake with the Alder Lake-S codename. The Xeon’s generation is Xeon W (Skylake-W), and the Celeron’s generation is Celeron (Alder Lake-S).