Celeron G3900E vs Xeon X5355

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 X5355 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 G3900E vs Xeon X5355: 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

2016

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,384 less on MSRP ($107 MSRP vs $4,491 MSRP).
✅Delivers 4086.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.0 vs 0.5 PassMark/$ ($107 MSRP vs $4,491 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 120W, a 85W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 510, while Xeon X5355 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,034 vs 2,039).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5355, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.

Xeon X5355

2006

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.5 vs 19.0 PassMark/$ ($4,491 MSRP vs $107 MSRP).
❌242.9% higher power demand at 120W 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 X5355?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X5355 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron G3900E 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, Xeon X5355 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 300% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Celeron G3900E is the better buy right now. Celeron G3900E comes in $4,384 cheaper on MSRP at $107 MSRP versus $4,491 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon X5355 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.2% better PassMark. It is also 4086.9% better value on MSRP (19.0 vs 0.5 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron G3900E makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron G3900E vs Xeon X5355 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 X5355

The Xeon X5355 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 November 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Clovertown (2006−2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.66 GHz, with boost up to 0.67 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 2,039 points. Launch price was $1,172.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron G3900E packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Xeon X5355 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon X5355 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G3900E versus 0.67 GHz on the Xeon X5355 — a 112.7% clock advantage for the Celeron G3900E. The Celeron G3900E uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon X5355 uses Clovertown (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3900E scores 2,034 against the Xeon X5355's 2,039 — a 0.2% lead for the Xeon X5355. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron G3900E vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon X5355.

Feature	Celeron G3900E	Xeon X5355
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+258%	0.67 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.66 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB	8 MB L2 Cache+300%
L2 Cache	512 kB	4 MB (total)+700%
Process	14 nm-78%	65 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Clovertown (2006−2007)
PassMark	2,034	2,039
Geekbench 6 Single	699	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	948	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron G3900E) / not specified (Xeon X5355). The Celeron G3900E includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 510), while the Xeon X5355 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900E targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900E rivals Pentium G4400.

Feature	Celeron G3900E	Xeon X5355
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	HD Graphics 510	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron G3900E was priced at $107, while the Xeon X5355 came in at $4491. On launch pricing ($107 vs $4491), Celeron G3900E was $4384 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron G3900E delivers 19.0 pts/$ vs 0.5 pts/$ for the Xeon X5355 — making the Celeron G3900E the 190.7% better value option.

Feature	Celeron G3900E	Xeon X5355
MSRP	$107-98%	$4491
Performance per Dollar	19.0+3700%	0.5
Release Date	2016	2006

Search Celeron G3900E on Amazon

Search Xeon X5355 on Amazon

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.