Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2667 v3 outperforms Celeron 847 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2667 v3 is 1177 days newer than Celeron 847.
Advantages of Intel Celeron 847
- Consumes up to 87% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 - 17 vs 135 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3
- Performs up to 8% better in Overwatch 2 than Celeron 847 - 334 vs 309 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron 847 - 8 vs 2 threads
Overwatch 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Celeron 847
Mobile • Jun 19th, 2011
Xeon E5-2667 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron 847 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2667 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 19th, 2011 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Sandy Bridge | Codename | Gainestown, Haswell-E/EP, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge-EP/EX |
| Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Mobile | Segment | Server |
| 2 | Cores | 8 |
| 2 | Threads | 8 |
| 1.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
17 W | TDP | 135 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 11.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
