Intel Celeron N5105 vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Celeron N5105 across every benchmark where both processors appear. The most decisive margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Celeron scores 341 against the Xeon X5560's 276, a 23.6% advantage. That pattern repeats almost exactly in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 1422 versus 1154, a 23.2% lead. The consistency is striking, the N5105 wins by roughly the same margin in nearly every test, suggesting a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Celeron posts 200 while the Xeon manages 162, a 23.5% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 478 versus 388, again a 23.2% difference. The Xeon's higher base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost of 3.20 GHz do not translate into faster single-thread performance, the Celeron's 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost are enough to outpace it. This is a notable inversion, the older server chip has higher raw frequencies but loses on actual throughput.

Multi-threaded workloads are where the Xeon should theoretically shine, since it has 8 threads versus the Celeron's 4. Yet the data contradicts that expectation. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Celeron's 3388 dwarfs the Xeon's 2749, a 23.2% win despite having half the thread count. The Celeron also dominates Geekbench multi-core with 1189, though the Xeon has no recorded Geekbench score in the database, so that comparison remains incomplete. The Xeon's only benchmark victories are absent entirely, it appears in five head-to-head tests and wins none of them.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The Celeron sits at 955, while the Xeon sits at 946, a marginal overall difference of less than 1%. But that average hides the lopsided head-to-head results. The Celeron's percentile ranking is 25th among all CPUs, and the Xeon's is also 25th, placing them in the same broad performance tier. Yet when measured directly against each other, the Celeron is consistently faster. The nearest rivals for the Celeron include the Intel Xeon W3570 at 955 (0% delta), the Intel Xeon W3550 at 956 (-0.1%), and the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 (-0.1%). The Xeon X5560's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5400T at 946 (0%), the AMD Phenom II X6 1045T at 946 (0%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U at 947 (-0.1%).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Celeron N5105 wins every head-to-head benchmark recorded. If the choice is purely about measured performance, the Celeron is the pick. It leads by 23.2% to 23.6% across all Cinebench variants, both single-core and multi-core. The Xeon X5560 offers no counterpoints in the database, zero wins out of five tests. Even the Xeon's higher clock speeds and greater thread count fail to close the gap. The Celeron's 4 cores and 4 threads simply outperform the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads in every recorded workload.

Who should choose the Celeron? Anyone prioritizing raw benchmark scores, especially in Cinebench workloads, which are commonly used to gauge rendering and general CPU throughput. The Celeron also brings integrated graphics, the UHD Graphics 24EU, which the Xeon lacks entirely. For a system that needs display output without a separate GPU, the Celeron is the only option between these two. The Celeron's 10 W TDP versus the Xeon's 95 W TDP also indicates far lower power consumption, though the database does not provide direct wattage measurements beyond those TDP figures.

Who should choose the Xeon? The data offers no performance reason to do so. The Xeon does support ECC memory, which the Celeron does not, and that could matter for certain server or workstation reliability scenarios. The Xeon also supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the Celeron uses dual-channel DDR4/LPDDR4. But on pure benchmark results, the Xeon is behind. The Xeon's release date of March 2009 also places it in an older generation, while the Celeron's architecture is Tremont on Jasper Lake, a much newer design. The Xeon's only practical advantage is ECC support, but for general computing, the Celeron is the superior choice according to every recorded measurement.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras of Intel design. The Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture on the Jasper Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process node. The Xeon X5560 uses the Nehalem architecture on the Gainestown codename, built on a 45 nm process node. That process gap is enormous, 10 nm versus 45 nm, which explains much of the efficiency and performance differences. The Celeron's die size is 63.8 mm², while the Xeon's is 263 mm², over four times larger. The Xeon packs 731 million transistors, while the Celeron's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Cache configurations also diverge sharply. The Celeron has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is a legacy advantage, but it does not translate into better benchmark scores. The Celeron's smaller cache, combined with its newer architecture, still wins. The L2 cache structure differs fundamentally, the Celeron shares its L2 across all cores, while the Xeon gives each core its own dedicated 256 KB slice.

The memory controllers also differ. The Celeron supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The Xeon supports only DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration, with no bandwidth figure recorded. The Celeron's PCIe support is Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2. The Celeron includes integrated graphics, the UHD Graphics 24EU, while the Xeon has none. The Celeron does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon does. These architectural choices reflect their different target markets, the Celeron for mobile and low-power systems, the Xeon for server and workstation deployments.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several clear contrasts. The Celeron N5105 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon X5560 has 4 cores and 8 threads, the Xeon's hyper-threading gives it double the thread count. Base clocks differ, the Celeron runs at 2000.00 MHz, the Xeon at 2.80 GHz. Boost clocks show 2.90 GHz for the Celeron and 3.20 GHz for the Xeon. The TDP figures are stark, 10 W for the Celeron versus 95 W for the Xeon, a 9.5x difference in thermal design power.

Sockets are incompatible. The Celeron uses Intel BGA 1338, a soldered mobile socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, a desktop/server socket. The process nodes differ, 10 nm for the Celeron and 45 nm for the Xeon. The Celeron's die size is 63.8 mm², the Xeon's is 263 mm². The Celeron's transistor count is not listed, while the Xeon lists 731 million. Memory support differs, the Celeron accepts DDR4 and LPDDR4, the Xeon accepts DDR3. Memory bus widths are dual-channel versus triple-channel. ECC support is absent on the Celeron, present on the Xeon. Integrated graphics exist only on the Celeron, the UHD Graphics 24EU.

The Celeron's PCIe is Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, the Xeon's is Gen 2 with no lane count specified. Market segments differ, the Celeron is marked as Mobile, the Xeon as Server/Workstation. Production status for both is End-of-life. The release date for the Xeon is March 29, 2009, while the Celeron has no recorded release date. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers are SRKGV for the Celeron and SLBF4 for the Xeon. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Celeron N5105 wins every recorded multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 341 versus the Xeon X5560's 276, a 23.6% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 1422 versus 1154, a 23.2% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3388 versus 2749, also a 23.2% lead.

Q: Does the Xeon's higher clock speed help it in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite the Xeon's 2.80 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost clocks, the Celeron N5105 wins single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Celeron scores 200 versus the Xeon's 162, a 23.5% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Celeron scores 478 versus 388, a 23.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Xeon's 8 threads give it an advantage over the Celeron's 4 threads?

A: No, the data shows the opposite. The Xeon has 8 threads while the Celeron has 4, but the Celeron still wins all multi-core benchmarks by over 23%. The Celeron's architectural efficiency overcomes the thread count disadvantage.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon X5560 supports ECC memory. The Intel Celeron N5105 does not have ECC support. This is the Xeon's sole recorded feature advantage over the Celeron.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Intel Celeron N5105 includes UHD Graphics 24EU. The Intel Xeon X5560 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate GPU for display output.

Q: How do the overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Celeron N5105 has an average benchmark score of 955, while the Xeon X5560 has an average of 946. That is a difference of less than 1%, but the head-to-head results show a much larger gap, with the Celeron winning all five recorded tests.