Celeron 3755U vs Xeon 5130

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron 3755U vs Xeon 5130 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron 3755U vs Xeon 5130: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Broadwell), while Xeon 5130 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon 5130

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,175 vs 1,182).
❌Launch MSRP is still $316 MSRP, while Celeron 3755U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3755U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3755U better than Xeon 5130?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5130 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron 3755U is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3755U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 3755U is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon 5130 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Celeron 3755U comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $316 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon 5130 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon 5130 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (3.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron 3755U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 3755U vs Xeon 5130 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

Xeon 5130

The Xeon 5130 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Junho 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Woodcrest (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,175 points. Launch price was $16.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 3755U and Xeon 5130 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U versus 2 GHz on the Xeon 5130 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Xeon 5130 (base: 1.7 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron 3755U uses the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon 5130 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 3755U scores 1,182 against the Xeon 5130's 1,175 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 3755U. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U vs 0 kB on the Xeon 5130.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Xeon 5130
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.7 GHz	2 GHz+18%
Base Clock	1.7 GHz	2 GHz+18%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+6300%	4 MB
Process	14 nm-78%	65 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-U (2015)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,182	1,175
Geekbench 6 Multi	625	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 3755U uses the FCBGA1168 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon 5130 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 3755U	Xeon 5130
Socket	FCBGA1168	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U) / not specified (Xeon 5130). The Celeron 3755U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Xeon 5130 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.