Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2670 v3 outperforms Celeron G3930T on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2670 v3 is 848 days older than Celeron G3930T.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3
- Performs up to 5% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Celeron G3930T - 122 vs 116 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3930T - 24 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3930T
- Consumes up to 71% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 - 35 vs 120 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 | vs | Intel Celeron G3930T |
---|---|---|
Sep 8th, 2014 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Celeron |
Gainestown, Haswell-E/EP, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX | Codename | Kaby Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
12 | Cores | 2 |
24 | Threads | 2 |
2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
3.1 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
120 W | TDP | 35 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
23.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 610 |
No | Overclockable | No |