In Rust, the Xeon E5-1620 v2 is slightly faster than the Celeron 847. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-1620 v2
- Up to 1% faster in Rust – 211 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Rust
- Is 2 years and 2 months newer – Sep 10, 2013 vs Jun 19, 2011
- Is 2 years and 2 months newer
Celeron 847
- Consumes up to 87% less energy – 17 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 87% 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 E5-1620 v2 vs Celeron 847: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Celeron 847 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Celeron 847 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-1620 v2
Sep 10th, 2013
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
10 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.9 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Celeron 847
Jun 19th, 2011
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
2 MB
20%
Base Frequency
1.1 GHz
30%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-1620 v2 Sep 10th, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron 847 Jun 19th, 2011 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 10th, 2013 | Release Date | Jun 19th, 2011 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Laptop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | Intel BGA 1023 |
| 130W | Power Consumption | 17W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
