Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2667 v3 outperforms Celeron B820 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2667 v3 is 799 days newer than Celeron B820.
Advantages of Intel Celeron B820
- Consumes up to 74% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 - 35 vs 135 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3
- Performs up to 7% better in Elden Ring than Celeron B820 - 116 vs 108 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron B820 - 8 vs 2 threads
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Mobile • Jul 1st, 2012
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron B820 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 |
---|---|---|
Jul 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Sandy Bridge | Codename | Gainestown, Haswell-E/EP, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX |
Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Mobile | Segment | Server |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
1.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 135 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
17.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |