Intel Celeron N5100 vs Intel Xeon W3550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a remarkably consistent pattern across all five Cinebench tests: the Intel Celeron N5100 wins every single head-to-head matchup, though by a very narrow margin. The largest victory comes in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the N5100 scores 166 against the Xeon W3550's 164, a delta of 1.2%. The remaining four tests show deltas of 1.0% or 1.1%, indicating that the performance gap is uniform rather than workload-specific.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the N5100 scores 282 versus 279 for the W3550, a 1.1% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1179 for the N5100 and 1166 for the W3550, again a 1.1% delta. The R23 multi-core results follow the same pattern, with 2809 for the N5100 and 2778 for the W3550. The R23 single-core test rounds out the set with 396 versus 392, a 1.0% edge.

These numbers place both processors at the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores are close as well: the N5100 averages 966, while the W3550 averages 956. The nearest rivals for the N5100 include the Intel Xeon X5570 at 967 (0.1% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U at 968 (0.2% ahead). For the W3550, the closest competitors are the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 (exact match) and the Intel Core i7-950 at 957 (0.1% behind). The data indicates that both processors sit in a crowded performance band where single-digit point differences separate many models.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Celeron N5100 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake platform, built on a 10 nm process node. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 2.8 GHz. The Xeon W3550, in contrast, uses the Nehalem architecture on the Bloomfield platform, fabricated on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors and a die size of 263 mm². It also has 4 cores but doubles the thread count to 8 via Hyper-Threading, with a base clock of 3.07 GHz and a boost of 3.33 GHz.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The N5100 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. The W3550 also has 64 KB of L1 per core but provides 256 KB of L2 per core and a larger 8 MB shared L3. Despite having half the thread count and a much smaller L3 cache, the N5100 still manages to edge out the W3550 in every benchmark, which speaks to the efficiency gains from the newer architecture and process node.

Memory support diverges as well. The N5100 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The W3550 uses DDR3 in a triple-channel layout, with no bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The N5100 does not support ECC memory, while the W3550 does. PCIe support also differs: the N5100 offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the W3550 provides Gen 2 without a lane count specified.

The N5100 includes integrated UHD Graphics with 24 execution units, whereas the W3550 has no integrated graphics at all. The power profiles are dramatically different: the N5100 has a TDP of 6 watts, while the W3550 draws 130 watts. The N5100 uses the Intel BGA 1338 socket and targets the mobile segment, while the W3550 uses Intel Socket 1366 and targets the server/workstation segment. Both are end-of-life products, with the W3550's release date recorded as August 2009.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 scores 2809 against the Intel Xeon W3550's 2778, a 1.1% advantage for the N5100.

Q: How do the thread counts compare?

A: The Celeron N5100 has 4 threads, while the Xeon W3550 has 8 threads. Despite having twice the thread count, the W3550 loses every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The N5100 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 in dual-channel mode with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the W3550 supports DDR3 in triple-channel mode with no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Xeon W3550 supports ECC memory, while the Celeron N5100 does not.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The N5100 has a TDP of 6 watts, while the W3550 has a TDP of 130 watts.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The N5100 includes UHD Graphics with 24 execution units, while the W3550 has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Celeron N5100 wins all five head-to-head tests against the Intel Xeon W3550. The margins are small, ranging from 1.0% to 1.2%, but they are consistent across both single-core and multi-core workloads. The N5100 achieves this with 4 threads instead of 8, a smaller L3 cache (4 MB versus 8 MB), and a drastically lower TDP (6 watts versus 130 watts). The architectural efficiency of the Tremont core on a 10 nm process clearly outweighs the raw clock speed and thread count advantages of the Nehalem-based W3550.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life processors, the data suggests the N5100 is the better performer in the tested Cinebench workloads. The W3550 retains advantages in areas not covered by these benchmarks: it supports ECC memory, uses a triple-channel memory bus, and offers a larger L3 cache. However, the N5100's integrated graphics, higher memory bandwidth, and newer PCIe generation make it a more complete package for general-purpose use. The W3550's server/workstation positioning with ECC support may still appeal to specific professional applications, but the recorded performance data does not favor it.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Celeron N5100 | Intel Xeon W3550 |

|---|---|---|

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 3.07 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.8 GHz | 3.33 GHz |

| TDP | 6 W | 130 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1338 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Architecture | Tremont | Nehalem |

| Codename | Jasper Lake | Bloomfield |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 731 million |

| Die Size | 63.8 mm² | 263 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, LPDDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 24EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Part Number | SRKGZ | SLBEY |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Celeron N5100 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-core performance, where the 1.2% delta in R20 represents the largest margin of any test. The N5100 also leads in multi-core workloads across R15, R20, and R23, with consistent 1.1% deltas. Beyond raw compute, the N5100 offers integrated graphics, lower power consumption, newer memory support, and a smaller die size. Its 46.9 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds what is recorded for the W3550, which has no bandwidth figure in the database.

The Intel Xeon W3550's wins are not visible in the benchmark data but exist in the specification sheet. It doubles the thread count to 8, provides a larger 8 MB L3 cache, supports ECC memory, and uses a triple-channel memory bus. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.07 GHz and 3.33 GHz versus 1100 MHz and 2.8 GHz) do not translate into benchmark victories, but they may benefit workloads that are sensitive to raw clock speed rather than the specific Cinebench tests recorded here. The W3550 also targets the server/workstation segment, which may matter for compatibility with existing Socket 1366 platforms and DDR3 memory ecosystems.

In practical terms, the data shows the N5100 as the better choice for the tested workloads, while the W3550 remains relevant only for scenarios requiring ECC memory or legacy platform compatibility. The N5100's mobile segment positioning and 6-watt TDP make it suitable for low-power systems, whereas the W3550's 130-watt TDP and server orientation suggest it was designed for sustained professional workloads that do not appear in the current benchmark set.