In Control, the Celeron G3900 is same performance as the Xeon E5640. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron G3900
- Is 5 years and 5 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 5 years and 5 months newer
- Consumes up to 36% less energy – 51 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 36% 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 E5640
No clear advantages
Control FPS Calculator
Celeron G3900 vs Xeon E5640: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$44.04
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G3900 vs Xeon E5640 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G3900 vs Xeon E5640 in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
4 MB
33%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Xeon E5640
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.666 GHz
95%
Turbo Frequency
2.933 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G3900 Sep 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5640 Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1366 |
51W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2133 MHz (DDR3), 2133 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
Intel HD 510 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
