Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1650 v4 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-1650 v4 is 1295 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 61% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 - 55 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4
- Performs up to 11% better in Watch Dogs: Legion than Celeron G1620 - 138 vs 124 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 12 vs 2 threads
Watch Dogs: Legion
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Xeon E5-1650 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
34.66101694915254%
Multi-Core
723
13.193430656934307%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 6 |
| 2 | Threads | 12 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 140 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 27.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
