Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2670 v3 outperforms Celeron 1000M on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2670 v3 is 596 days newer than Celeron 1000M.
Advantages of Intel Celeron 1000M
- Consumes up to 71% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 - 35 vs 120 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3
- Performs up to 11% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Celeron 1000M - 163 vs 147 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron 1000M - 24 vs 2 threads
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron 1000M
Mobile • Jan 20th, 2013
Xeon E5-2670 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron 1000M | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2670 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 20th, 2013 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Gainestown, Haswell-E/EP, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX |
| Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Mobile | Segment | Server |
| 2 | Cores | 12 |
| 2 | Threads | 24 |
| 1.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.3 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.1 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 120 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 18.0x | Multiplier | 23.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
