CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

This is an unusual matchup, pairing a 2009-era quad-core workstation Xeon against a 2020-era quad-core mobile Celeron. The data is unambiguous: the Celeron N5105 wins every single head-to-head benchmark. There are no wins for the Xeon W3550 in the tested suite.

The most striking result is in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Celeron N5105 scores 341 against the Xeon's 279. That is an 18.2% advantage for the Celeron, which is remarkable given the Xeon's much higher power envelope and server-class positioning. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern, with the Celeron at 1422 and the Xeon at 1166, an 18% delta.

Single-core performance tells the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Celeron N5105 manages 200 points, while the Xeon W3550 trails at 164, again an 18% deficit. The gap persists in Cinebench R23: the Celeron scores 478 in single-core and 3388 in multicore, while the Xeon manages 392 and 2778 respectively. Every single test shows the same 18% margin, which suggests a consistent architectural efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

What is especially notable is that the Xeon's average benchmark score is 956, and the Celeron's is 955, a difference of merely 0.1%. Yet in every actual Cinebench test, the Celeron wins decisively. The average score masks the fact that the Celeron has a broader set of benchmarks included, and the Xeon has no single-core scores in its benchmark list for the R15 and R23 tests. The head-to-head data is clear: the Celeron N5105 is the faster processor in all tested workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two chips is vast, reflecting a decade of process and microarchitecture evolution. The Xeon W3550 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, built on Intel's 45 nm process. It contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture, codenamed Jasper Lake, built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of just 63.8 mm². That is roughly a quarter of the physical silicon, yet it delivers substantially more performance in these tests.

Both processors have four cores, but the Xeon supports eight threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Celeron is limited to four threads with no SMT. This makes the Celeron's multicore wins even more notable, as it does not have the thread-count advantage. The Xeon's base clock is 3.07 GHz with a boost to 3.33 GHz, while the Celeron's base clock is 2000.00 MHz with a boost to 2.90 GHz. On paper, the Xeon's clocks look stronger, but the Tremont cores are far more efficient per clock.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Celeron has the same 64 KB L1 per core, but a shared 1.5 MB L2 and a shared 4 MB L3. The Xeon has more total cache, yet loses in every benchmark, which underscores how much more efficient the newer cores are.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, while the Celeron supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 with a dual-channel bus. The Celeron's memory bandwidth is listed at 46.9 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the Celeron. PCIe is Gen 2 on the Xeon, whereas the Celeron offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Celeron also integrates UHD Graphics 24EU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

The socket situation is a major practical difference. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, requiring a dedicated workstation or server motherboard. The Celeron is a BGA 1338 part, soldered to the board, which means it is typically found in compact or embedded systems. The Xeon is classified as Server/Workstation, while the Celeron is Mobile. Both are end-of-life production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon W3550 averages 956, and the Celeron N5105 averages 955, a 0.1% difference. The Xeon is listed as 0.1% ahead in its rival list, while the Celeron's rival list shows the Xeon at a -0.1% delta.

Q: Does the Xeon W3550 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The Celeron N5105 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with the Xeon trailing by 18% or 18.2% in every case.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both have four cores. The Xeon has eight threads, while the Celeron has four. Despite having half the threads, the Celeron still wins all multicore tests.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Xeon W3550 has a 130 W TDP. The Celeron N5105 has a 10 W TDP. The Celeron delivers higher benchmark scores at a fraction of the power draw.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W3550 supports ECC memory. The Celeron N5105 does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Celeron N5105, which includes UHD Graphics 24EU. The Xeon W3550 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The Xeon W3550 was released on 2009-08-08. The Celeron N5105 has no listed release date in the data.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Threads: Xeon W3550 has 8 threads; Celeron N5105 has 4.
• Base clock: 3.07 GHz on the Xeon; 2000.00 MHz on the Celeron.
• Boost clock: 3.33 GHz on the Xeon; 2.90 GHz on the Celeron.
• TDP: 130 W on the Xeon; 10 W on the Celeron.
• Socket: Intel Socket 1366 on the Xeon; Intel BGA 1338 on the Celeron.
• Architecture: Nehalem on the Xeon; Tremont on the Celeron.
• Codename: Bloomfield on the Xeon; Jasper Lake on the Celeron.
• Process node: 45 nm on the Xeon; 10 nm on the Celeron.
• Transistors: 731 million on the Xeon; not listed for the Celeron.
• Die size: 263 mm² on the Xeon; 63.8 mm² on the Celeron.
• L2 cache: 256 KB per core on the Xeon; 1.5 MB shared on the Celeron.
• L3 cache: 8 MB shared on the Xeon; 4 MB shared on the Celeron.
• Memory support: DDR3 on the Xeon; DDR4 and LPDDR4 on the Celeron.
• Memory bus: Triple-channel on the Xeon; dual-channel on the Celeron.
• Memory bandwidth: Not listed for the Xeon; 46.9 GB/s for the Celeron.
• ECC memory: Supported on the Xeon; not supported on the Celeron.
• PCIe: Gen 2 on the Xeon; Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only) on the Celeron.
• Integrated graphics: None on the Xeon; UHD Graphics 24EU on the Celeron.
• Market segment: Server/Workstation on the Xeon; Mobile on the Celeron.
• Part number: SLBEY on the Xeon; SRKGV on the Celeron.

The Verdict

The data is categorical. The Celeron N5105 outperforms the Xeon W3550 in every benchmark where they are directly compared, with a consistent 18% margin across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multicore tests. This is not a close contest.

The Xeon W3550 does have advantages, but they are not performance-related in the tested workloads. It supports ECC memory, which matters for certain server or workstation reliability scenarios. It offers eight threads for heavily threaded workloads that scale beyond four threads. It also has a larger L3 cache at 8 MB versus 4 MB. But none of these translate into a benchmark win here.

The Celeron N5105 is the faster chip in all measured metrics. Its 10 nm Tremont cores deliver more performance per clock, and its 10 W TDP makes the Xeon's 130 W envelope look absurd in comparison. The Celeron also adds integrated graphics, newer PCIe Gen 3, and modern memory support. For any workload represented by these Cinebench tests, the Celeron is simply the better processor.

The Xeon's average benchmark score of 956 versus the Celeron's 955 shows how close they are in overall standing, with a 0.1% difference. But the head-to-head benchmark results tell the real story. The Xeon W3550 is a product of its era, and the data shows that a modern low-power Celeron has fully surpassed it in raw compute performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Celeron N5105 wins in every tested compute workload. That includes all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 runs, both single-core and multicore. If the task is rendering, encoding, or any CPU-bound application represented by these benchmarks, the Celeron is the pick. Its 10 W TDP also makes it the obvious choice for any power-sensitive or passively cooled system. It brings integrated UHD Graphics 24EU, which the Xeon lacks entirely, so it also wins in any scenario requiring a display output without a discrete GPU. The Celeron supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory, which is more modern and readily available than the Xeon's DDR3 requirement.

The Xeon W3550 retains some niche advantages that the benchmark data does not capture. It supports ECC memory, so for a workstation or server where data integrity is critical, the Xeon remains viable. Its eight threads give it potential headroom in workloads that scale beyond four threads, though the benchmark results show the Celeron's four efficient cores still beat its eight older threads. The Xeon's triple-channel memory bus could theoretically provide higher bandwidth in certain memory-intensive tasks, though this is not reflected in the provided benchmarks. Its 8 MB of L3 cache is double the Celeron's 4 MB, which could help in cache-sensitive workloads. The Xeon also uses a socketed design, allowing for CPU upgrades on compatible Socket 1366 boards, whereas the Celeron is soldered via BGA 1338.

For a new build, the Celeron N5105 is the rational choice based on every available data point. For someone maintaining an aging Socket 1366 workstation with ECC requirements, the Xeon W3550 still has a purpose. But as a pure performance comparison, the result is decisive: the Celeron wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, and that is the entire story.