In Atomfall, the Xeon E5645 is slightly slower than the Celeron G3900. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5645
No clear advantages
Celeron G3900
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall – 190 vs 189 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall
- Is 5 years and 5 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 5 years and 5 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 E5645 vs Celeron G3900: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
190 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
142 FPS
100%
Price, $
$44.04
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.23/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5645 vs Celeron G3900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5645 vs Celeron G3900 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5645
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
86%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Celeron G3900
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
4 MB
33%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5645 Mar 16th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G3900 Sep 1st, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 80W | 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 |
