
Celeron G3900E

Xeon E5410
Celeron G3900E vs Xeon E5410 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
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 G3900E vs Xeon E5410 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Celeron G3900E vs Xeon E5410: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Celeron G3900E
2016Why buy it
- ✅Costs $149 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $256 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 139.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.0 vs 7.9 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $256 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 80W, a 45W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 510, while Xeon E5410 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 12 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5410, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.
Xeon E5410
2007Why buy it
- ✅+500% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 2 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (2,032 vs 2,034).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.9 vs 19.0 PassMark/$ ($256 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
- ❌128.6% higher power demand at 80W vs 35W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3900E can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron G3900E better than Xeon E5410?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron G3900E vs Xeon E5410 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron G3900E
The Celeron G3900E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 2,034 points. Launch price was $107.

Xeon E5410
The Xeon E5410 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 November 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Harpertown (2007−2008) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.33 GHz, with boost up to 0.33 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 2,032 points. Launch price was $256.
Processing Power
The Celeron G3900E packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Xeon E5410 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5410 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G3900E versus 0.33 GHz on the Xeon E5410 — a 151.6% clock advantage for the Celeron G3900E. The Celeron G3900E uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5410 uses Harpertown (2007−2008) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3900E scores 2,034 against the Xeon E5410's 2,032 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron G3900E. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron G3900E vs 12 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E5410.
| Feature | Celeron G3900E | Xeon E5410 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.4 GHz+627% | 0.33 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 2.33 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB | 12 MB L2 Cache+500% |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 6 MB (total)+1100% |
| Process | 14 nm-69% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Skylake (2015−2016) | Harpertown (2007−2008) |
| PassMark | 2,034 | 2,032 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 699 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 948 | — |
Memory & Platform
Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the Celeron G3900E versus DDR2-667 on the Xeon E5410 — the Celeron G3900E supports 219.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G3900E supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron G3900E) vs 0 (Xeon E5410) — the Celeron G3900E offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Celeron G3900E | Xeon E5410 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | — | LGA771 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2133+220% | DDR2-667 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB+100% | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. The Celeron G3900E includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 510), while the Xeon E5410 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900E targets Budget, Xeon E5410 targets Server. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900E rivals Pentium G4400.
| Feature | Celeron G3900E | Xeon E5410 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics 510 | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | VT-x |
| Target Use | Budget | Server |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Celeron G3900E was priced at $107, while the Xeon E5410 came in at $256. On launch pricing ($107 vs $256), Celeron G3900E was $149 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G3900E delivers 19.0 pts/$ vs 7.9 pts/$ for the Xeon E5410 — making the Celeron G3900E the 82.2% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron G3900E | Xeon E5410 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $107-58% | $256 |
| Performance per Dollar | 19.0+141% | 7.9 |
| Release Date | 2016 | 2007 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














