Key Differences
In short — Celeron G1620 outperforms Xeon E5-2640 v2 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G1620 is 272 days older than Xeon E5-2640 v2.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2640 v2
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 16 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Performs up to 1% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Xeon E5-2640 v2 - 150 vs 149 FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2640 v2 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2640 v2 doesn't have integrated graphics
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
150
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.22/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$32.99
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for CA$32.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 14002 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Server/Workstation • Sep 1st, 2013
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-2640 v2 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2013 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Celeron |
Ivy Bridge EP | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
16 | Threads | 2 |
2.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
2.5 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 55 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
20.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |