In Deathloop, the Core i3-330M is slightly faster than the Xeon E3-1240. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-330M
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop – 225 vs 219 FPS
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 56% less energy – 35 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 56% 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 E3-1240
- Is 1 year and 2 months newer – Apr 03, 2011 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 1 year and 2 months newer
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i3-330M vs Xeon E3-1240: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
225 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
169 FPS
100%
Price, $
$98.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-330M vs Xeon E3-1240 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-330M vs Xeon E3-1240 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
3 MB
38%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
65%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
100%
Xeon E3-1240
Apr 3rd, 2011
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E3-1240 Apr 3rd, 2011 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Release Date | Apr 3rd, 2011 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Server |
| LGAG1 | Socket | LGA1155 |
35W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1066 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
