In Deathloop, the Celeron 3205U is slightly faster than the Xeon E5645. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron 3205U
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop – 228 vs 221 FPS
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop
- Is 4 years and 11 months newer – Mar 01, 2015 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 4 years and 11 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 E5645
No clear advantages
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Celeron 3205U vs Xeon E5645: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron 3205U vs Xeon E5645 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron 3205U vs Xeon E5645 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron 3205U
Mar 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
2 MB
17%
Base Frequency
1.5 GHz
62%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1600 MHz
100%
Xeon E5645
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron 3205U Mar 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5645 Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| $107.00 | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Server |
| Intel BGA 1168 | Socket | LGA1366 |
15W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1600 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
