In Atomfall, the Xeon E5640 is slightly slower than the Celeron G3930. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5640
No clear advantages
Celeron G3930
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall – 190 vs 189 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 9 months newer – Jan 03, 2017 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 6 years and 9 months newer
- Consumes up to 36% less energy – 51 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 36% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Xeon E5640 vs Celeron G3930: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Celeron G3930
Jan 3rd, 2017
Average FPS
190 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
143 FPS
100%
Price, $
$29
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.15/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5640 vs Celeron G3930 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5640 vs Celeron G3930 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5640
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.666 GHz
92%
Turbo Frequency
2.933 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Celeron G3930
Jan 3rd, 2017
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
2 MB
17%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5640 Mar 16th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G3930 Jan 3rd, 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 80W | Power Consumption | 51W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2400 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD 610 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
