Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1650 v4 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1610 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1650 v4 is 1295 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 53% cheaper than Xeon E5-1650 v4 - $37.0 vs $78.02
- Up to 50% better value when playing DOOM Eternal than Xeon E5-1650 v4 - $0.08 vs $0.16 per FPS
- Consumes up to 61% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 - 55 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4
- Performs up to 7% better in DOOM Eternal than Celeron G1610 - 479 vs 449 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 12 vs 2 threads
DOOM Eternal
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Nightmare
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 14308 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
479
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.16/FPS
50%
Price, $
$78.02
47%
FPS Winner
Buy for $78.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 14309 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Nightmare
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 140 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |