Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Celeron G6900 outperforms the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Celeron G6900 is 2024 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G6900
- Performs up to 25% better in The Callisto Protocol than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 126 vs 101 FPS
- Up to 4% better value when playing The Callisto Protocol than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - £0.47 vs £0.49 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 15% cheaper than Celeron G6900 - £49.95 vs £58.99
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G6900 - 8 vs 2 threads
The Callisto Protocol
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
FPS
126
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.47/FPS
100%
Price, £
£58.99
84%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £58.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1646 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
101
80.15873015873017%
Value, £/FPS
£0.49/FPS
95.91836734693877%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1647 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G6900 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Jan 4th, 2022 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Alder Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
3.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Not Available | TDP | 140 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
34.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
UHD Graphics 710 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |