Intel Celeron N5100 vs Intel Xeon W3570 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database places the Intel Celeron N5100 and Intel Xeon W3570 in nearly the same performance tier, but the Celeron N5100 wins every recorded head-to-head test. The Celeron N5100 takes all five Cinebench comparisons with margins between 1.0% and 1.2%. Its average benchmark score of 966 sits just ahead of the Xeon W3570's 955, a gap of roughly 1.2%. Both processors land in the bottom quarter of all CPUs: the Celeron N5100 at the 26th percentile, the Xeon W3570 at the 25th.

The data suggests choosing the Celeron N5100 for any workload where the recorded benchmarks matter, as it consistently edges out the Xeon W3570 in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests. The Xeon W3570 does offer ECC memory support and a triple-channel memory bus, which could matter for certain server or workstation environments, but in raw Cinebench performance the Celeron N5100 is the winner. The Xeon W3570's 130 W TDP versus the Celeron N5100's 6 W TDP further favors the newer part, though the Xeon's higher power envelope reflects its older, larger design.

Where Each One Wins

The Celeron N5100 wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. In multi-core tests, it leads by 1.1% in Cinebench R15 (282 versus 279), 1.2% in Cinebench R20 (1179 versus 1165), and 1.2% in Cinebench R23 (2809 versus 2776). Single-core results follow the same pattern: the Celeron N5100 posts 166 versus 164 in Cinebench R20 single-core (a 1.2% edge) and 396 versus 392 in Cinebench R23 single-core (a 1.0% edge).

The Xeon W3570 has no recorded benchmark wins, but its architecture provides features the Celeron N5100 lacks. It supports ECC memory, which the Celeron N5100 does not, and its triple-channel memory bus could offer bandwidth advantages in memory-sensitive workloads, though the database does not record a bandwidth figure for the Xeon. The Celeron N5100 instead has a recorded memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. For users prioritizing error-correcting memory or legacy server compatibility, the Xeon W3570 holds a qualitative advantage, but for the Cinebench suite the Celeron N5100 is strictly ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Celeron N5100 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake platform, built on a 10 nm process with a die size of 63.8 mm². The Intel Xeon W3570 uses the Nehalem architecture on the Bloomfield platform, built on a 45 nm process with a die size of 263 mm² and 731 million transistors. The Xeon's die is roughly four times larger, reflecting the older manufacturing node.

Core configurations differ despite both having four physical cores. The Celeron N5100 runs 4 threads (one per core), while the Xeon W3570 runs 8 threads via Hyper-Threading. Clock speeds heavily favor the Xeon: it has a 3.20 GHz base clock and a 3.47 GHz boost clock, versus the Celeron N5100's 1.10 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. The Xeon's higher clocks do not translate into benchmark wins, as the Celeron's newer architecture compensates.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Celeron N5100 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon W3570 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 4 MB) and per-core L2 (256 KB versus a shared 1.5 MB) might suggest an advantage in cache-heavy workloads, but the recorded benchmarks do not reflect that.

Memory support splits the two clearly: the Celeron N5100 uses DDR4 or LPDDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon W3570 uses DDR3 over a triple-channel bus with no recorded bandwidth. The Celeron N5100 has no ECC support; the Xeon W3570 has ECC enabled. PCIe generations also differ: the Celeron N5100 offers Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Xeon W3570 offers Gen 2 without a lane count recorded. The Celeron N5100 includes integrated UHD Graphics 24EU, while the Xeon W3570 has no integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Celeron N5100 scores 966 on average, while the Intel Xeon W3570 scores 955, a difference of about 1.2% in favor of the Celeron.

Q: Does the Xeon W3570 win any of the head-to-head Cinebench tests?

A: No. The database records 5 head-to-head tests, and the Celeron N5100 wins all of them, with margins ranging from 1.0% to 1.2%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two CPUs?

A: The Celeron N5100 has a 6 W TDP, while the Xeon W3570 has a 130 W TDP, making the Celeron dramatically more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory. The Celeron N5100 does not support ECC.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both have 4 physical cores, but the Celeron N5100 runs 4 threads total, while the Xeon W3570 runs 8 threads through Hyper-Threading.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Celeron N5100 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 over a dual-channel bus. The Xeon W3570 supports DDR3 over a triple-channel bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Celeron N5100's clean sweep of the Cinebench suite is notable given the Xeon W3570's much higher clock speeds. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Celeron N5100 scores 282 versus the Xeon's 279, a 1.1% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1179 versus 1165, a 1.2% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 2809 versus 2776, again 1.2%. Single-core results are similarly close: Cinebench R20 single-core has the Celeron at 166 and the Xeon at 164 (1.2% lead), while Cinebench R23 single-core has 396 versus 392 (1.0% lead).

These margins are small, but they are consistent across every test. The Xeon W3570's 3.20 GHz base clock and 3.47 GHz boost clock, paired with 8 threads, should theoretically give it an edge in multi-threaded workloads, yet the Celeron N5100's Tremont architecture and 10 nm process overcome the clock deficit. The Celeron's 4 MB L3 cache is half the Xeon's 8 MB, but it still posts faster Cinebench scores. The data suggests that the newer architecture's efficiency more than compensates for the older chip's higher clocks and larger cache.

For context, both CPUs sit near the bottom of the performance distribution. The Celeron N5100's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon X5570 (average score 967, a 0.1% difference) and AMD Ryzen 7 3700U (average score 968, a 0.2% difference). The Xeon W3570's nearest rivals include the Intel Celeron N5105 (average score 955, a 0% difference) and Intel Xeon W3550 (average score 956, a 0.1% difference). These nearby scores underscore how tightly clustered this performance tier is.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Celeron N5100 uses a 10 nm process with a 63.8 mm² die, while the Xeon W3570 uses a 45 nm process with a 263 mm² die and 731 million transistors. Base clocks are 1.10 GHz for the Celeron versus 3.20 GHz for the Xeon; boost clocks are 2.80 GHz versus 3.47 GHz. TDP is dramatically different: 6 W for the Celeron, 130 W for the Xeon.

Thread counts differ: the Celeron N5100 has 4 threads, the Xeon W3570 has 8. Cache configurations are distinct: the Celeron has 1.5 MB shared L2 and 4 MB shared L3, while the Xeon has 256 KB per-core L2 and 8 MB shared L3. Both share 64 KB L1 per core.

Memory support splits: the Celeron N5100 uses DDR4 or LPDDR4 dual-channel with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon W3570 uses DDR3 triple-channel with no recorded bandwidth. ECC memory is absent on the Celeron, present on the Xeon. PCIe differs: Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes on the Celeron, Gen 2 on the Xeon. The Celeron has integrated UHD Graphics 24EU; the Xeon has none.

Sockets and platforms are incompatible: the Celeron N5100 uses Intel BGA 1338 (mobile), while the Xeon W3570 uses Intel Socket 1366 (server/workstation). The Celeron is a mobile-market part, the Xeon a server/workstation part. Both are end-of-life in production status. The Xeon's release date is recorded as March 2009, while the Celeron's release date is not in the database. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP.