CPU Comparison

The Intel Celeron N5105 and Intel Xeon W3570 land at the exact same average benchmark score of 955, placing both in the 25th percentile of all CPUs. That headline parity, however, masks a complete reversal in how each processor achieves its results. The N5105, a 10nm Tremont-based mobile chip, wins every single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, while the W3570, a 45nm Nehalem-era workstation part, counters with higher clock speeds, more threads, and ECC memory support. The data paints a clear picture of two very different design philosophies converging on similar overall performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Celeron N5105 is the outright winner in every benchmark recorded in this comparison. It takes all five head-to-head tests: Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core, and Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core. The margins are remarkably consistent, ranging from 21.9% to 22.2% across all tests. This suggests the N5105's architectural efficiency, built on the Tremont core design, delivers a uniform advantage regardless of workload type. The single-core results are particularly telling, the N5105 scores 200 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 164 for the W3570, a 22% gap that indicates the newer architecture is fundamentally more efficient at executing instructions per clock.

The Xeon W3570, despite having zero benchmark wins, still holds positional advantages that matter in specific use cases. It offers 8 threads versus the N5105's 4, which means workloads explicitly designed to scale with thread count could see benefits beyond what these Cinebench scores reflect. The W3570 also supports ECC memory, a feature completely absent from the Celeron, making it the only choice here for systems requiring error-correcting memory. Its triple-channel DDR3 memory bus provides a wider memory path compared to the N5105's dual-channel DDR4/LPDDR4 support, though the Celeron's 46.9 GB/s memory bandwidth is a documented figure while the Xeon's bandwidth is not listed. For legacy software tuned for Nehalem-era instruction sets or environments requiring ECC, the W3570 is the functional winner despite losing every synthetic benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is generational. The Celeron N5105 uses Intel's Tremont architecture on a 10nm process, fabricated by Intel with a die size of 63.8 mm². The Xeon W3570 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45nm process, also fabricated by Intel, but with a much larger 263 mm² die and 731 million transistors. This is a classic density-versus-complexity tradeoff: the N5105 packs its cores into a fraction of the silicon, while the W3570 uses nearly 4.2 times the die area to house its older, larger transistors.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The N5105 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The W3570 matches the N5105 on L1 cache at 64 KB per core but allocates 256 KB of L2 per core, significantly more per-core L2, and doubles the shared L3 to 8 MB. This means the Xeon has twice the total L3 cache and four times the per-core L2, which historically would benefit workloads with high cache reuse. The N5105 compensates with a newer memory controller supporting DDR4 and LPDDR4 in dual-channel mode, while the W3570 is limited to DDR3 in triple-channel mode.

The socket and platform targets are completely different. The N5105 uses Intel BGA 1338, a soldered mobile socket, and is classified in the Mobile market segment. The W3570 uses Intel Socket 1366, a desktop/workstation socket, and belongs to the Server/Workstation segment. The N5105 integrates UHD Graphics 24EU, while the W3570 has no integrated graphics at all. Process node differences (10nm versus 45nm) explain the massive TDP gap: the N5105 draws 10 watts while the W3570 draws 130 watts, a 13x difference that makes the Celeron dramatically more suitable for fanless or battery-powered designs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Celeron N5105's largest margin of victory comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 341 against the W3570's 279, a 22.2% advantage. This is the most lopsided result in the comparison and demonstrates that even with half the threads, the N5105's Tremont cores outpace the older Nehalem cores in a threaded render workload. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 1422 versus 1165, a 22.1% win for the Celeron.

Single-core results are nearly identical in margin. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the N5105 at 200 and the W3570 at 164, a 22% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core follows the same trajectory: 478 versus 392, a 21.9% gap. The consistency of these margins, all hovering between 21.9% and 22.2%, strongly indicates that the performance difference scales uniformly across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The W3570's higher base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.47 GHz cannot overcome the N5105's architectural efficiency, despite the Celeron's much lower 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost clocks.

Geekbench data is only available for the N5105, which scores 1189 multi-core and 516 single-core. No Geekbench scores are listed for the W3570, so no direct comparison is possible in that test. The average benchmark score for both processors is identical at 955, reinforcing that these chips occupy the same overall performance tier despite the Celeron's sweep of the Cinebench suite. The nearest rival for both is the Intel Xeon W3550 at 956 average score, a 0.1% difference, followed by the AMD Athlon X4 870K also at 956, and the Intel Core i7-950 at 957.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks?

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 21.9% to 22.2%. The Intel Xeon W3570 has zero benchmark wins in this comparison.

Q: How do the thread counts compare?

A: The Celeron N5105 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon W3570 has 4 cores and 8 threads due to Hyper-Threading support. Despite having half the threads, the N5105 wins all multi-core benchmarks.

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

A: The Celeron N5105 has a TDP of 10 watts, while the Xeon W3570 has a TDP of 130 watts. This is a 13x difference in power consumption.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory. The Celeron N5105 does not have ECC support.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The N5105 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 in dual-channel mode with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth. The W3570 supports DDR3 in triple-channel mode, but its memory bandwidth is not listed.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Celeron N5105 includes UHD Graphics 24EU. The Xeon W3570 has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Celeron N5105 | Intel Xeon W3570 |

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

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.47 GHz |

| TDP | 10 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 listed | 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 listed |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 24EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | Not listed | March 29, 2009 |

| Part Number | SRKGV | SLBES |