Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-2699A 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 E5-2699A v4 is 1422 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4
- Performs up to 18% better in World of Warcraft than Celeron G1610 - 180 vs 153 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 44 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 98% cheaper than Xeon E5-2699A v4 - $37.0 vs $1595.95
- Up to 97% better value when playing World of Warcraft than Xeon E5-2699A v4 - $0.24 vs $8.87 per FPS
- Consumes up to 62% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 - 55 vs 145 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
World of Warcraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 25th, 2016
FPS
180
100%
Value, $/FPS
$8.87/FPS
2%
Price, $
$1595.95
2%
FPS Winner
Buy for $1,595.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 5401 minutes ago
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 5401 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Oct 25th, 2016
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Oct 25th, 2016 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Celeron |
Broadwell | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
22 | Cores | 2 |
44 | Threads | 2 |
2.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
145 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
24.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |