Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2667 v2 outperforms Celeron G3900 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2667 v2 is 730 days older than Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2667 v2
- Performs up to 1% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Celeron G3900 - 118 vs 117 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 16 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Consumes up to 61% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2667 v2 - 51 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2667 v2 doesn't have integrated graphics
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
117
99%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.19/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$21.99
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$21.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 196 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Server/Workstation • Sep 1st, 2013
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-2667 v2 | vs | Intel Celeron G3900 |
---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2013 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Celeron |
Ivy Bridge EP | Codename | Skylake |
Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
16 | Threads | 2 |
3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
130 W | TDP | 51 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
33.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 510 |
No | Overclockable | No |