In Deathloop, the Celeron 3205U is slightly faster than the Xeon E3-1240. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron 3205U
- Up to 4% faster in Deathloop – 228 vs 220 FPS
- Up to 4% faster in Deathloop
- Is 3 years and 10 months newer – Mar 01, 2015 vs Apr 03, 2011
- Is 3 years and 10 months newer
- Consumes up to 81% less energy – 15 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 81% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Xeon E3-1240
No clear advantages
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Celeron 3205U vs Xeon E3-1240: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron 3205U vs Xeon E3-1240 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron 3205U vs Xeon E3-1240 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron 3205U
Mar 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
2 MB
25%
Base Frequency
1.5 GHz
45%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1600 MHz
100%
Xeon E3-1240
Apr 3rd, 2011
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron 3205U Mar 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E3-1240 Apr 3rd, 2011 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Apr 3rd, 2011 |
| $107.00 | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Server |
| Intel BGA 1168 | Socket | LGA1155 |
15W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1600 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
