In Atomfall, the Celeron 847 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2689. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron 847
- Consumes up to 85% less energy – 17 vs 115 Watts
- Consumes up to 85% 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 E5-2689
- Up to 6% faster in Atomfall – 193 vs 182 FPS
- Up to 6% faster in Atomfall
- Is 8 months and 17 days newer – Mar 06, 2012 vs Jun 19, 2011
- Is 8 months and 17 days newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron 847 vs Xeon E5-2689: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron 847 vs Xeon E5-2689 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron 847 vs Xeon E5-2689 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron 847
Jun 19th, 2011
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
2 MB
10%
Base Frequency
1.1 GHz
42%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Xeon E5-2689
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron 847 Jun 19th, 2011 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2689 Mar 6th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 19th, 2011 | Release Date | Mar 6th, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Server |
| Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | LGA2011 |
17W | Power Consumption | 115W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1600 MHz (DDR3) |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
