Celeron N2820 vs Xeon 5110

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 N2820 vs Xeon 5110 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 N2820 vs Xeon 5110: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron N2820

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.8% higher average FPS across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 7W instead of 65W, a 58W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Xeon 5110 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon 5110

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron N2820 across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,055 vs 1,061).
❌828.6% higher power demand at 65W vs 7W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2820 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2820 better than Xeon 5110?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5110 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron N2820 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron N2820 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.8% more average FPS across 44 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2820 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 N2820 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2820 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.8% average FPS lead across 44 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N2820 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 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 N2820 vs Xeon 5110 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron N2820

The Celeron N2820 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 2.39 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,061 points. Launch price was $107.

Xeon 5110

The Xeon 5110 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 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 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: 1,055 points. Launch price was $20.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron N2820 and Xeon 5110 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.39 GHz on the Celeron N2820 versus 1.6 GHz on the Xeon 5110 — a 39.6% clock advantage for the Celeron N2820 (base: 2.13 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron N2820 uses the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon 5110 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron N2820 scores 1,061 against the Xeon 5110's 1,055 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron N2820. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron N2820	Xeon 5110
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.39 GHz+49%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	2.13 GHz+33%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+12700%	4 MB
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,061	1,055
Geekbench 6 Single	220	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	400	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron N2820 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 5110 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron N2820	Xeon 5110
Socket	FCBGA1170	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron N2820) / not specified (Xeon 5110). The Celeron N2820 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Xeon 5110 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2820 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N2820 rivals AMD A6-6310.