Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms Celeron G1840 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 781 days newer than Celeron G1840.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 8% better in Assassin's Creed Odyssey than Celeron G1840 - 126 vs 117 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1840 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1840
- Consumes up to 62% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 53 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Celeron G1840
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Celeron G1840 |
|---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | May 1st, 2014 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | Celeron |
| Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Haswell |
| Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1150 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
| 3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 140 W | TDP | 53 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD (Haswell) |
| No | Overclockable | No |
