Intel Celeron N5105 vs Intel Xeon X5570 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon X5570 records an average benchmark score of 967, while the Intel Celeron N5105 scores 955. The Xeon sits 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and the Intel Core i5-2400S, while the Celeron matches the Intel Xeon W3570 exactly.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core rendering performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Celeron N5105 scores 478 against the Xeon's 396, a 17.2% advantage. The gap narrows slightly in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Celeron leads 200 to 166, also a 17% difference.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these chips?

A: The Xeon X5570 has a TDP of 95 watts, while the Celeron N5105 draws just 10 watts. That is a 9.5x difference in thermal design power, reflecting their vastly different market segments.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon X5570 supports ECC memory. The Celeron N5105 does not include ECC support, which aligns with its mobile-focused design.

Q: What are the release dates for these two processors?

A: The Xeon X5570 was released on March 29, 2009, with a launch MSRP of $1386. The Celeron N5105 has no recorded release date in the database.

Q: How does the Xeon's percentile ranking compare to the Celeron's?

A: The Xeon X5570 sits at the 26th percentile among all CPUs, while the Celeron N5105 is at the 25th percentile. Despite the Xeon's slightly higher percentile, the Celeron wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is wide. The Xeon X5570 uses Intel's Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, built on a 45 nm process. It packs 731 million transistors into a 263 mm² die. The Celeron N5105 uses the Tremont architecture, codenamed Jasper Lake, on a 10 nm process with a much smaller 63.8 mm² die. This process advantage helps explain how a modern low-power chip can outperform a decade-old server part.

Both processors have 4 cores, but the Xeon doubles the thread count with Hyper-Threading, offering 8 threads versus the Celeron's 4. The cache layouts differ substantially. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 8 MB of shared L3. The Celeron also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 is organized as 1.5 MB shared, and its L3 is 4 MB shared. The Xeon's larger L3 cache reflects its server heritage, while the Celeron's smaller shared pool suits its efficiency goals.

Memory support separates these parts further. The Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, delivering 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Celeron supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 with a dual-channel bus, but achieves a higher 46.9 GB/s bandwidth despite fewer channels. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Celeron does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon offers Gen 2, while the Celeron provides Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics situation is one-sided. The Celeron N5105 includes UHD Graphics 24EU, while the Xeon X5570 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the Celeron a complete system-on-chip solution, whereas the Xeon requires a discrete GPU. The Xeon targets server and workstation workloads, while the Celeron is classified as a mobile part. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results tell a consistent story: the Celeron N5105 wins every recorded comparison. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Celeron scores 341 against the Xeon's 283, a 17% advantage. The same 17% gap appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Celeron posts 1422 versus 1180. This consistency across rendering workloads suggests the Celeron's newer architecture delivers better throughput per clock despite its lower core count.

Single-core performance shows an identical pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Celeron leads 200 to 166, again a 17% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Celeron at 478 against the Xeon's 396, a 17.2% edge. These single-core results are particularly telling, as they isolate raw per-thread capability without any multi-threading advantage. The Xeon's 8 threads cannot compensate for its architectural age when each individual thread is slower.

The Cinebench R23 multicore result reinforces the trend. The Celeron scores 3388, while the Xeon manages 2810, a 17.1% difference. Even though the Xeon has twice the thread count, the Celeron's efficiency advantage wins out. The data shows the Celeron is not merely competitive; it is decisively ahead across the entire benchmark suite, with delta percentages ranging from 17% to 17.2%.

The win tally is stark: the Celeron records 5 wins, and the Xeon records 0. This is not a close contest. The Xeon's average benchmark score of 967 is slightly higher than the Celeron's 955, but that average includes a broader set of legacy workloads. In the specific Cinebench tests recorded here, the Celeron dominates every metric.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Celeron N5105 outperforms the Intel Xeon X5570 in every measured benchmark. The Celeron wins all five head-to-head comparisons with margins between 17% and 17.2%. For workloads that rely on single-thread performance, the Celeron is the better choice by a substantial margin. For multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Celeron still wins despite the Xeon's 8 threads versus 4.

The Xeon's advantages are not in performance but in platform features. It supports ECC memory, which matters for error-sensitive server workloads. It uses the Intel Socket 1366 platform, which may be relevant for legacy system upgrades. Its launch MSRP was $1386, positioning it as a high-end server part at release, but the database shows its performance has aged poorly relative to modern low-power silicon.

Users who already own a Socket 1366 workstation with DDR3 memory might find the Xeon a functional drop-in for legacy applications. However, anyone building or upgrading a system today should favor the Celeron N5105. Its 10 nm Tremont architecture delivers superior performance at a fraction of the power draw: 10 watts versus 95 watts. The Celeron also brings integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 3 support, making it a more complete modern platform.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical, with the Xeon at 26 and the Celeron at 25, but that similarity masks the benchmark reality. The Celeron's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W3570 and W3550, while the Xeon's rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U and Intel Core i5-2400S. The Xeon's average score of 967 edges out the Celeron's 955, but this aggregate metric obscures the Celeron's consistent wins in the recorded Cinebench tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X5570 | Intel Celeron N5105 |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.93 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.33 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 10 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 recorded |

| 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 |

| Release Date | 2009-03-29 | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | $1386 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SLBF3 | SRKGV |

Where Each One Wins

The Celeron N5105 wins everywhere the benchmarks measure. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it leads by 17%. In Cinebench R20 multicore and single-core, it leads by 17% in both. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the margin is 17.1%, and in R23 single-core, it is 17.2%. The Celeron also offers integrated graphics, a feature the Xeon completely lacks. For general computing, media consumption, and light productivity, the Celeron is the stronger option based on the recorded data.

The Xeon X5570 retains value only in specific legacy contexts. Its ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-tolerant server workloads where data integrity is paramount. Its triple-channel DDR3 memory bus, while lower in peak bandwidth than the Celeron's dual-channel DDR4, may integrate into existing Socket 1366 systems. The Xeon's 8 threads could theoretically benefit heavily parallel legacy workloads, but the benchmark data shows the Celeron still wins in the recorded multi-threaded tests.

The power envelope favors the Celeron overwhelmingly. At 10 watts versus 95 watts, the Celeron consumes a fraction of the power while delivering superior benchmark scores. This makes it the obvious choice for power-constrained or fanless designs. The Xeon's 45 nm process and 731 million transistors belong to a different era of silicon design.

For system integrators and hobbyists, the Celeron's BGA 1338 socket and mobile classification mean it is typically soldered to motherboards, while the Xeon's Socket 1366 allows for socketed upgrades. The Celeron's PCIe Gen 3 interface with 8 CPU lanes provides modern connectivity, whereas the Xeon's Gen 2 interface is dated. The Celeron's support for DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory gives it access to faster, more efficient memory technologies.

The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the Celeron N5105 is the better processor for essentially all measured workloads. The Xeon X5570 remains relevant only for niche server applications requiring ECC memory on a legacy platform. For everything else, the Celeron's combination of higher performance, lower power, and modern features makes it the superior choice.