Key Differences
In short — Celeron G3930 outperforms Xeon W3520 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G3930 is 2836 days newer than Xeon W3520.
Advantages of Intel Xeon W3520
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3930 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3930
- Performs up to 2% better in FINAL FANTASY XIV: Endwalker than Xeon W3520 - 227 vs 223 FPS
- Consumes up to 61% less energy than Intel Xeon W3520 - 51 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon W3520 doesn't have integrated graphics
FINAL FANTASY XIV: Endwalker
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Xeon W3520
Server/Workstation • Mar 30th, 2009
Celeron G3930
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon W3520 | vs | Intel Celeron G3930 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 30th, 2009 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
| Xeon | Collection | Celeron |
| Bloomfield | Codename | Kaby Lake |
| Intel Socket 1366 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
| 2.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 130 W | TDP | 51 W |
| 45 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 20.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 610 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
