In Battlefield 6, the Xeon E5-2640 v2 is quite a bit slower than the Core i9-12900K. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-2640 v2
- Consumes up to 24% less energy – 95 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 24% less energy
Core i9-12900K
- Up to 97% faster in Battlefield 6 – 120 vs 61 FPS
- Up to 97% faster in Battlefield 6
- Is 8 years and 2 months newer – Nov 04, 2021 vs Sep 01, 2013
- Is 8 years and 2 months newer
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-2640 v2 vs Core i9-12900K: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i9-12900K
Nov 4th, 2021
Average FPS
120 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
90 FPS
100%
Price, $
$296.12
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.46/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-2640 v2 vs Core i9-12900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-2640 v2 vs Core i9-12900K in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-2640 v2
Sep 1st, 2013
Cores
8-core
50%
L3 Cache
20 MB
67%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
62%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-12900K
Nov 4th, 2021
Cores
16-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
5.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
4800 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-2640 v2 Sep 1st, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-12900K Nov 4th, 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 1st, 2013 | Released | Nov 4th, 2021 |
| – | MSRP | $599.00 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | LGA1700 |
95 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 4800 MHz (DDR5) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
