Celeron G3930T vs Xeon E5 1680 v4
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5 1680 v4 outperforms Celeron G3930T by a whopping 599% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 854 | 2274 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.90 | 1.23 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 6.05 | 3.46 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell-EP (2016) | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,723 | $42 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5 1680 v4 has 54% better value for money than Celeron G3930T.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 34 | 27 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 246.24 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 92 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | 65 °C |
| Number of transistors | 3,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | + | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 | DDR4 2133, DDR3L 1333/1600 |
| Maximum memory size | 1.5 TB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 610 |
| Max video memory | no data | 64 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.95 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 3 January 2017 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 35 Watt |
Xeon E5 1680 v4 has a 599.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads.
Celeron G3930T, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and 300% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5 1680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G3930T in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5 1680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron G3930T is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5 1680 v4 and Celeron G3930T, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
