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 SU2300 vs Xeon 3.20 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 SU2300 vs Xeon 3.20: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron SU2300

2009

Why buy it

✅Costs $717 less on MSRP ($134 MSRP vs $851 MSRP).
✅Delivers 501.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 4.1 vs 0.7 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $851 MSRP).
✅Draws 10W instead of 97W, a 87W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 575).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (1 MB vs 2 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon 3.20, which brings 1 cores / 1 threads.

Xeon 3.20

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

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.7 vs 4.1 PassMark/$ ($851 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
❌870% higher power demand at 97W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 3.20 better than Celeron SU2300?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 3.20 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Celeron SU2300 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 3.20 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.2% 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 3.20 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.5% 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 3.20 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Xeon 3.20 comes in 535.1% more expensive on MSRP at $851 MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron SU2300 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games.

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

Celeron SU2300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2009 vs 2003). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron SU2300 vs Xeon 3.20 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron SU2300

The Celeron SU2300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon 3.20

The Xeon 3.20 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: 3.2 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: 575 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon 3.20 is built on the Gallatin (2003−2004) architecture. In PassMark, the Celeron SU2300 scores 545 against the Xeon 3.20's 575 — a 5.4% lead for the Xeon 3.20. L3 cache: 1 MB on the Celeron SU2300 vs 2 MB on the Xeon 3.20.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Xeon 3.20
Cores / Threads	—	1 / 1
Boost Clock	—	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
L2 Cache	—	512 kB
Process	45 nm-65%	130 nm
Architecture	—	Gallatin (2003−2004)
PassMark	545	575+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron SU2300 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 3.20 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Xeon 3.20
Socket	BGA956	PGA604
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron SU2300 was priced at $134, while the Xeon 3.20 came in at $851. On launch pricing ($134 vs $851), Celeron SU2300 was $717 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron SU2300 delivers 4.1 pts/$ vs 0.7 pts/$ for the Xeon 3.20 — making the Celeron SU2300 the 143% better value option.

Feature	Celeron SU2300	Xeon 3.20
MSRP	$134-84%	$851
Performance per Dollar	4.1+486%	0.7
Release Date	2009	2003

Search Celeron SU2300 on Amazon

Search Xeon 3.20 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.