In The Last of Us Part II, the Core i3-10105F is slightly slower than the Xeon E5620. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-10105F
- Is 11 years newer – Mar 16, 2021 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 11 years newer
- Consumes up to 19% less energy – 65 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 19% less energy
Xeon E5620
- Up to 14% faster in The Last of Us Part II – 200 vs 175 FPS
- Up to 14% faster in The Last of Us Part II
The Last of Us Part II FPS Calculator
Core i3-10105F vs Xeon E5620: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-10105F
Mar 16th, 2021
Average FPS
175 FPS
88%
Min 1% FPS
131 FPS
87%
Price, $
$138.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.79/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-10105F vs Xeon E5620 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-10105F vs Xeon E5620 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-10105F
Mar 16th, 2021
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
6 MB
50%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Xeon E5620
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
65%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
61%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-10105F Mar 16th, 2021 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5620 Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 16th, 2021 | Released | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| $97.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1200 | Socket | LGA1366 |
65 W | Power Consumption | 80 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
