Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2699A v4 outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2699A v4 is 1422 days newer than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 62% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 - 55 vs 145 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4
- Performs up to 11% better in Ready or Not than Celeron G1610 - 259 vs 233 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 44 vs 2 threads
Ready or Not
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Xeon E5-2699A v4
Desktop • Oct 25th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
426
36.255319148936174%
Multi-Core
739
7.682711300550993%
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 25th, 2016 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Broadwell |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 22 |
| 2 | Threads | 44 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.4 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 145 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 24.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
