Key Differences
In short — Celeron G6900 outperforms Xeon E5-1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G6900 is 3591 days newer than Xeon E5-1620.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G6900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G6900
- Performs up to 28% better in Rust than Xeon E5-1620 - 204 vs 160 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 doesn't have integrated graphics
Rust
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Server/Workstation • Mar 6th, 2012
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 | vs | Intel Celeron G6900 |
---|---|---|
Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Celeron |
Sandy Bridge-EP | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
130 W | TDP | Not Available |
32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 |
No | Overclockable | No |