In Atomfall, the Celeron G1610 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2678 v3. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 54% less energy – 55 vs 120 Watts
- Consumes up to 54% 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 E5-2678 v3
- Up to 10% faster in Atomfall – 203 vs 185 FPS
- Up to 10% faster in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron G1610 vs Xeon E5-2678 v3: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
185 FPS
91%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
91%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G1610 vs Xeon E5-2678 v3 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G1610 vs Xeon E5-2678 v3 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
17%
L3 Cache
2 MB
7%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Xeon E5-2678 v3
Cores
12-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.5 GHz
96%
Turbo Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2678 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | – |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA2011-3 |
55W | Power Consumption | 120W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2133 MHz (DDR3), 2133 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
