Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v3 outperforms Celeron G3900 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v3 is 358 days older than Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3
- Performs up to 3% better in Battlefield 1 than Celeron G3900 - 238 vs 231 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Consumes up to 64% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 - 51 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
231
97%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
Price, $
$39.9
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $39.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 53 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 | vs | Intel Celeron G3900 |
---|---|---|
Sep 8th, 2014 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Celeron |
Haswell-E/EP | Codename | Skylake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
140 W | TDP | 51 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 510 |
No | Overclockable | No |