Key Differences
In short — Xeon E3-1240 v3 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E3-1240 v3 is 181 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E3-1240 v3
- Performs up to 5% better in The Last of Us Part I than Celeron G1620 - 133 vs 127 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 31% less energy than Intel Xeon E3-1240 v3 - 55 vs 80 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E3-1240 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
The Last of Us Part I
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Server/Workstation • Jun 2nd, 2013
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E3-1240 v3 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Jun 2nd, 2013 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Xeon E3 | Collection | Celeron |
Haswell | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1150 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
80 W | TDP | 55 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
34.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |