Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2667 v3 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 v3 is 358 days older than Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Consumes up to 62% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 - 51 vs 135 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3
- Performs up to 3% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Celeron G3900 - 197 vs 192 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Celeron G3900
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Xeon E5-2667 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G3900 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 |
|---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Skylake | Codename | Gainestown, Haswell-E/EP, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX |
| Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| 2 | Cores | 8 |
| 2 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
51 W | TDP | 135 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 28.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
Intel HD 510 | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
