Buy on Amazon
£19.99
In Stock
Availability
Availability
AvailabilityMSRP in USD: $294
Availability
MSRP in USD: $294
Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G3900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G3900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 293 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Up to 60% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - £19.99 vs £49.95
- Up to 57% better value when playing Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - £0.17 vs £0.4 per FPS
- Consumes up to 64% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 51 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 8% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Celeron G3900 - 126 vs 117 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Celeron G3900
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
117
92%
Value, £/FPS
£0.17/FPS
100%
Price, £
£19.99
100%
Value Winner
Intel Celeron G3900 2.8 Processor - Affordable and Reliable
Buy for £19.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 21 minutes ago
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
126
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.4/FPS
42%
Price, £
£49.95
40%
FPS Winner
Intel Corp. BX80660E51620V4 Xeon Processor E5-1620 v4
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 22 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Celeron G3900
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G3900 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Skylake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
| Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 4 |
| 2 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
51 W | TDP | 140 W |
| 14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 28.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Intel HD 510 | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
