Key Differences
In short — Xeon X5675 outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon X5675 is 658 days older than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Xeon X5675
- Performs up to 1% better in Overwatch 2 than Celeron G1610 - 320 vs 317 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 12 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than Intel Xeon X5675 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon X5675 doesn't have integrated graphics
Overwatch 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 199 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Server/Workstation • Feb 14th, 2011
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon X5675 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Feb 14th, 2011 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Xeon | Collection | Celeron |
Westmere-EP | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1366 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
12 | Threads | 2 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
3.5 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
95 W | TDP | 55 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
23.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |