In The Last of Us Part II, the Core i3-4160T is slightly slower than the Xeon X3450. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-4160T
- Is 4 years and 10 months newer – Jul 21, 2014 vs Sep 08, 2009
- Is 4 years and 10 months newer
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% 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 X3450
- Up to 8% faster in The Last of Us Part II – 198 vs 184 FPS
- Up to 8% faster in The Last of Us Part II
The Last of Us Part II FPS Calculator
Core i3-4160T vs Xeon X3450: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-4160T vs Xeon X3450 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-4160T vs Xeon X3450 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-4160T
Jul 21st, 2014
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
3 MB
38%
Base Frequency
3.1 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Xeon X3450
Sep 8th, 2009
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.667 GHz
86%
Turbo Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1333 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-4160T Jul 21st, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon X3450 Sep 8th, 2009 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jul 21st, 2014 | Released | Sep 8th, 2009 |
| – | MSRP | $241.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1150 | Socket | LGA1156 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 95 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1333 MHz (DDR3) |
Intel HD 4400 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
