In Battlefield 6, the Core i5-3360M is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2699A v4. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i5-3360M
- Consumes up to 76% less energy – 35 vs 145 Watts
- Consumes up to 76% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Xeon E5-2699A v4
- Up to 3% faster in Battlefield 6 – 63 vs 61 FPS
- Up to 3% faster in Battlefield 6
- Is 4 years and 4 months newer – Oct 25, 2016 vs Jun 01, 2012
- Is 4 years and 4 months newer
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
Core i5-3360M vs Xeon E5-2699A v4: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Xeon E5-2699A v4
Oct 25th, 2016
Average FPS
63 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
47 FPS
100%
Price, $
$1078.93
100%
Value, $/FPS
$17.12/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-3360M vs Xeon E5-2699A v4 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-3360M vs Xeon E5-2699A v4 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-3360M
Jun 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
9%
L3 Cache
3 MB
5%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.5 GHz
97%
Max. unknown RAM Speed
MHz
Xeon E5-2699A v4
Oct 25th, 2016
Cores
22-core
100%
L3 Cache
55 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
86%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-3360M Jun 1st, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2699A v4 Oct 25th, 2016 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 1st, 2012 | Released | Oct 25th, 2016 |
| – | MSRP | $4,938.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGAG2 (988B) | Socket | LGA2011-3 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 145 W |
| Other Features | ||
| unknown | RAM | 2400 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD 4000 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
