Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1650 v4 outperforms the more expensive Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-1650 v4 is 1295 days newer than the more expensive Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- 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 5% better in The Last of Us Part I than Celeron G1620 - 133 vs 127 FPS
- Up to 6% cheaper than Celeron G1620 - $45.93 vs $49.0
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 12 vs 2 threads
The Last of Us Part I
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 106 minutes ago
Buy for $45.93 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 108 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
34.66101694915254%
Multi-Core
723
13.193430656934307%
Intel Celeron G1620 | 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 |
2.7 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 |
27.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |