Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2680 v3 outperforms Celeron G3930T on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2680 v3 is 848 days older than Celeron G3930T.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3930T
- Consumes up to 71% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 - 35 vs 120 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3
- Performs up to 6% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Celeron G3930T - 123 vs 116 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3930T - 24 vs 2 threads
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Celeron G3930T
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Xeon E5-2680 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G3930T | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3 |
|---|---|---|
Jan 3rd, 2017 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Kaby Lake | Codename | Haswell |
| Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| 2 | Cores | 12 |
| 2 | Threads | 24 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.5 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 120 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
Intel HD 610 | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
