Key Differences
In short — Xeon E3-1280 outperforms Celeron G3900 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E3-1280 is 1612 days older than Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E3-1280
- Performs up to 1% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Celeron G3900 - 172 vs 170 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Consumes up to 46% less energy than Intel Xeon E3-1280 - 51 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E3-1280 doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
170
98%
Value, €/FPS
€0.36/FPS
100%
Price, €
€60.9
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €60.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 141 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Server/Workstation • Apr 3rd, 2011
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E3-1280 | vs | Intel Celeron G3900 |
---|---|---|
Apr 3rd, 2011 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
Xeon E3 | Collection | Celeron |
Sandy Bridge-EP | Codename | Skylake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 51 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 510 |
No | Overclockable | No |