In Control, the Xeon E5-2630 is same performance as the Celeron G3900. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $206 more expensive!
Xeon E5-2630
No clear advantages
Celeron G3900
- Is 3 years and 5 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 3 years and 5 months newer
- Up to 82% cheaper – $44.04 vs $249.95
- Up to 82% cheaper
- Up to 83% better value in Control – $0.17 vs $1.02/FPS
- Up to 83% better value in Control
- 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
Control FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-2630 vs Celeron G3900: Comparison of performance and price
Xeon E5-2630
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$249.95
17%
Value, $/FPS
$1.02/FPS
17%
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$44.04
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-2630 vs Celeron G3900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-2630 vs Celeron G3900 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-2630
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
15 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.3 GHz
82%
Turbo Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
4 MB
27%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-2630 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G3900 Sep 1st, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | 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 |
