Celeron 925 vs Xeon 3.06

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 925 vs Xeon 3.06 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 925 vs Xeon 3.06: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 925

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 97W, a 62W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 535).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 2 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon 3.06, which brings 1 cores / 1 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Xeon 3.06 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon 3.06

2003

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 1 cores / 1 threads.

Trade-offs

❌177.1% higher power demand at 97W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 3.06 better than Celeron 925?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 3.06 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron 925 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 3.06 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 3.06 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (2 MB vs 1 MB).

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

Xeon 3.06 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon 3.06 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 925 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on that older platform.

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

Celeron 925 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 925 vs Xeon 3.06 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 925

The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon 3.06

The Xeon 3.06 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Gallatin (2003−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 3.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA604. Thermal design power (TDP): 97 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 535 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon 3.06 is built on the Gallatin (2003−2004) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron 925 scores 525 against the Xeon 3.06's 535 — a 1.9% lead for the Xeon 3.06. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925 vs 2 MB on the Xeon 3.06.

Feature	Celeron 925	Xeon 3.06
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	3.07 GHz
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB L2 Cache	2 MB+100%
L2 Cache	—	512 kB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	—	Gallatin (2003−2004)
PassMark	525	535+2%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 925) / not specified (Xeon 3.06). Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.