In Atomfall, the Celeron G3900 is same performance as the Xeon E5-2660. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron G3900
- Is 3 years and 5 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 3 years and 5 months newer
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 51 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% 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 E5-2660
No clear advantages
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron G3900 vs Xeon E5-2660: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
189 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
100%
Price, $
$44.04
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.23/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G3900 vs Xeon E5-2660 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G3900 vs Xeon E5-2660 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
4 MB
20%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Xeon E5-2660
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.2 GHz
79%
Turbo Frequency
3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G3900 Sep 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2660 Mar 6th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Mar 6th, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA2011 |
51W | Power Consumption | 95W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2133 MHz (DDR3), 2133 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
Intel HD 510 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
