In Rust, the Xeon E3-1280 is slightly faster than the Celeron G3900. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E3-1280
- Up to 1% faster in Rust – 211 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Rust
Celeron G3900
- Is 4 years and 4 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Apr 03, 2011
- Is 4 years and 4 months newer
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 51 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Rust FPS Calculator
Xeon E3-1280 vs Celeron G3900: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
209 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
42 FPS
98%
Price, $
$44.04
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E3-1280 vs Celeron G3900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E3-1280 vs Celeron G3900 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E3-1280
Apr 3rd, 2011
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.9 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
4 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
80%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E3-1280 Apr 3rd, 2011 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G3900 Sep 1st, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Apr 3rd, 2011 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 95W | Power Consumption | 51W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2133 MHz (DDR3), 2133 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD 510 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
