Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1650 v4 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G4900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G4900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1650 v4 is 652 days older than the cheaper Celeron G4900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Up to 13% cheaper than Xeon E5-1650 v4 - $68.02 vs $78.02
- Up to 9% better value when playing Overwatch 2 than Xeon E5-1650 v4 - $0.21 vs $0.23 per FPS
- Consumes up to 61% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 - 54 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 6% better in Overwatch 2 than Celeron G4900 - 342 vs 322 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G4900 - 12 vs 2 threads
Overwatch 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
FPS
322
94%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Price, $
$68.02
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $68.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 4252 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
342
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.23/FPS
91%
Price, $
$78.02
87%
FPS Winner
Buy for $78.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 4253 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G4900 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 |
---|---|---|
Apr 3rd, 2018 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Celeron | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
54 W | TDP | 140 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
UHD Graphics 610 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |