In Deathloop, the Xeon E5-2689 is slightly slower than the Celeron G1610. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-2689
No clear advantages
Celeron G1610
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop – 223 vs 219 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop
- Is 8 months and 28 days newer – Dec 03, 2012 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 8 months and 28 days newer
- Consumes up to 52% less energy – 55 vs 115 Watts
- Consumes up to 52% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-2689 vs Celeron G1610: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
223 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
167 FPS
100%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.21/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-2689 vs Celeron G1610 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-2689 vs Celeron G1610 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-2689
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1600 MHz
100%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
2 MB
10%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-2689 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | LGA1155 |
| 115W | Power Consumption | 55W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1600 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
