CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5570 and Intel Celeron N5100 are separated by over a decade of silicon evolution, yet their benchmark averages land within a single point of each other. The Xeon X5570, a 2009 server part built on 45 nm, averages 967 points across tested workloads, while the 10 nm mobile Celeron N5100 averages 966 points. Both sit at the 26th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and their nearest-rival lists are nearly identical, with the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and Intel Core i5-2400S both scoring 968 points. The data reveals a fascinating tie: the aging workstation chip matches a modern low-power part in raw throughput, but they achieve this parity through completely different architectural philosophies.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon X5570 edges out the Celeron N5100 by a single point, with an average benchmark score of 967 compared to 966. The deltaPct between them is 0.1% in favor of the Xeon.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon X5570 scores 2810 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Celeron N5100 scores 2809. The Xeon wins by a 0% deltaPct margin, effectively a tie within measurement noise.

Q: Is there any test where the Celeron N5100 beats the Xeon X5570?

A: No. Across all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the Xeon X5570 wins every test, though three of those wins are by 0% deltaPct (Cinebench R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both have 4 cores, but the Xeon X5570 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Celeron N5100 has only 4 threads. The Xeon’s extra threads do not translate into meaningful performance advantages in these tests.

Q: How does the Celeron N5100’s integrated graphics compare to the Xeon?

A: The Celeron N5100 includes UHD Graphics 24EU, while the Xeon X5570 has no integrated graphics at all. This is a key feature difference, though it does not affect the CPU benchmark scores listed here.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Xeon X5570?

A: The Xeon X5570 had a launch MSRP of $1386. The Celeron N5100 has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon X5570 and Celeron N5100 represent opposite poles of Intel’s design roadmap. The Xeon is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, using a 45 nm process node with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Celeron uses the Tremont architecture, codenamed Jasper Lake, on a 10 nm process with a much smaller 63.8 mm² die. This process shrink is the primary driver behind the Celeron’s dramatically lower power envelope, but it also means the chips have different core philosophies.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Xeon X5570 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, plus an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The Celeron N5100 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 is 1.5 MB shared across all cores, and its L3 is 4 MB shared. The Xeon’s per-core L2 design favors its server workload heritage, while the Celeron’s shared L2 reflects a more integrated, power-conscious mobile design.

Memory support further separates them. The Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, delivering 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth and supporting ECC memory. The Celeron uses DDR4 or LPDDR4 with a dual-channel bus, achieving 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly 47% more, but lacks ECC support entirely. The Celeron also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU-only lanes, whereas the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 2. The Xeon’s socket is Intel Socket 1366, while the Celeron uses Intel BGA 1338, reflecting the former’s replaceable server design versus the latter’s soldered mobile integration.

Feature sets tell a similar story. The Xeon X5570 targets the Server/Workstation market segment, supports ECC memory, and has no integrated graphics. The Celeron N5100 targets Mobile, has no ECC, and integrates UHD Graphics 24EU. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.93 GHz with a boost of 3.33 GHz, while the Celeron’s base clock is 1100.00 MHz (1.10 GHz) with a boost of 2.80 GHz, a massive difference in base frequency that the Celeron overcomes through its newer microarchitecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably tight across all five Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon X5570 scores 283 against the Celeron N5100’s 282, a 0.4% deltaPct, the largest margin of any test. This is the only test where the Xeon’s advantage exceeds a rounding error, and it is still within a single point.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 1180-to-1179 scoreline in favor of the Xeon, a 0.1% deltaPct. The single-core results are dead even: both chips score 166 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 396 in Cinebench R23 single-core, with 0% deltaPct in each case. Even the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, which typically stresses sustained throughput, ends at 2810 for the Xeon and 2809 for the Celeron, another 0% deltaPct result.

The data suggests that the Xeon’s higher base and boost clocks (2.93 GHz/3.33 GHz versus 1.10 GHz/2.80 GHz) are nearly perfectly offset by the Celeron’s newer Tremont architecture and faster memory bandwidth. The Xeon’s 8 threads versus the Celeron’s 4 threads should theoretically help in multi-threaded workloads, but the benchmarks show no such benefit materializing. In fact, the Xeon’s largest win is only 1 point in Cinebench R15, and three of the five tests are exact ties.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this parity. The Xeon averages 967, sitting 0.1% above the Celeron’s 966. Both chips are 0.1% to 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and Intel Core i5-2400S, which both average 968. The Xeon’s nearest-rival list includes the Celeron at 966 (deltaPct 0.1%), while the Celeron’s list includes the Xeon at 967 (deltaPct -0.1%). This symmetry is the clearest possible indicator that these two processors are performance twins in the tested workloads.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes one thing clear: performance is not a differentiator between these two processors. The Xeon X5570 wins all five head-to-head tests, but its largest margin is 0.4% and three of its wins are exact ties. Any user choosing between these two strictly on CPU throughput would be making an arbitrary decision.

The real differentiators lie elsewhere. The Xeon X5570 is a server-grade part with ECC memory support, a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus, and a socketed design (Intel Socket 1366) that allows for system upgrades. It also has 8 threads versus the Celeron’s 4, which could matter in workloads not captured by these Cinebench tests, though the data shows no evidence of that advantage here. Its launch MSRP was $1386, placing it firmly in the professional workstation tier.

The Celeron N5100, by contrast, offers a dramatically lower 6 W TDP compared to the Xeon’s 95 W, a 15.8x difference. It also supports faster DDR4/LPDDR4 memory with 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Xeon’s 32.0 GB/s, includes integrated UHD Graphics 24EU, and uses PCIe Gen 3. For a mobile or low-power embedded system, the Celeron is the only sensible choice. For a legacy server or workstation requiring ECC memory and a socketed CPU, the Xeon remains relevant.

Pick the Xeon X5570 if you need ECC memory, triple-channel bandwidth, or a socketed server platform, and if you can tolerate its 95 W power draw. Pick the Celeron N5100 if you need integrated graphics, lower power consumption, or modern memory support, and if you can accept a soldered BGA package. On pure compute performance, the data says it does not matter, these chips are interchangeable within a fraction of a percent.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X5570 | Intel Celeron N5100 |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.93 GHz | 1100.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.33 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel BGA 1338 |

| Architecture | Nehalem | Tremont |

| Codename | Gainestown | Jasper Lake |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 10 nm |

| Transistors | 731 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 63.8 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4, LPDDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.0 GB/s | 46.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 24EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $1386 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SLBF3 | SRKGZ |