In Deathloop, the Core i3-10100 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5640. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-10100
- Is 10 years and 1 month newer – Apr 30, 2020 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 10 years and 1 month newer
- Consumes up to 19% less energy – 65 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 19% 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 E5640
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 221 vs 219 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i3-10100 vs Xeon E5640: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-10100
Apr 30th, 2020
Average FPS
219 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
164 FPS
99%
Price, $
$159.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.73/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-10100 vs Xeon E5640 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-10100 vs Xeon E5640 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-10100
Apr 30th, 2020
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
6 MB
50%
Base Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Xeon E5640
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.666 GHz
74%
Turbo Frequency
2.933 GHz
68%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-10100 Apr 30th, 2020 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5640 Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1200 | Socket | LGA1366 |
65W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
UHD Graphics 630 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
