Celeron J4005 vs Xeon E5335

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 J4005 vs Xeon E5335 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 J4005 vs Xeon E5335: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J4005

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 80W, a 70W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel UHD Graphics 600, while Xeon E5335 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,543 vs 1,549).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5335, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.

Xeon E5335

2006

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.

Trade-offs

❌700% higher power demand at 80W vs 10W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J4005 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J4005 better than Xeon E5335?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5335 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron J4005 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 E5335 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).

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

Celeron J4005 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J4005 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J4005 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J4005 vs Xeon E5335 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J4005

The Celeron J4005 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 December 2017 (7 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont Plus (2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,543 points. Launch price was $107.

Xeon E5335

The Xeon E5335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Clovertown (2006−2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 1,549 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J4005 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Xeon E5335 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5335 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the Celeron J4005 versus 2 GHz on the Xeon E5335 — a 29.8% clock advantage for the Celeron J4005 (base: 2 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron J4005 uses the Goldmont Plus (2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5335 uses Clovertown (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J4005 scores 1,543 against the Xeon E5335's 1,549 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon E5335. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron J4005 vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E5335.

Feature	Celeron J4005	Xeon E5335
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+35%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB	8 MB L2 Cache+100%
L2 Cache	4 MB (total)	4 MB (total)
Process	14 nm-78%	65 nm
Architecture	Goldmont Plus (2017)	Clovertown (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,543	1,549
Geekbench 6 Single	450	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	800	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J4005 uses the FCBGA1090 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5335 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J4005	Xeon E5335
Socket	FCBGA1090	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	6	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Celeron J4005) / not specified (Xeon E5335). The Celeron J4005 includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics 600), while the Xeon E5335 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J4005 targets Entry Level Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron J4005 rivals Ryzen Embedded R1102G.