Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2620 v3 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-2620 v3 is 644 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 35% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 - 55 vs 85 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3
- Performs up to 7% better in Battlefield 2042 than Celeron G1620 - 153 vs 143 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 12 vs 2 threads
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Xeon E5-2620 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
| Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Haswell-E |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| 2 | Cores | 6 |
| 2 | Threads | 12 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.4 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 85 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 24.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
