In Deathloop, the Core i3-4170 is slightly slower than the Xeon W3670. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-4170
- Is 3 years and 8 months newer – May 01, 2014 vs Aug 29, 2010
- Is 3 years and 8 months newer
- Consumes up to 58% less energy – 54 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 58% 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 W3670
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 220 vs 218 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i3-4170 vs Xeon W3670: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-4170
May 1st, 2014
Average FPS
218 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
164 FPS
99%
Price, $
$98.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.45/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-4170 vs Xeon W3670 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-4170 vs Xeon W3670 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-4170
May 1st, 2014
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
25%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1600 MHz
100%
Xeon W3670
Aug 29th, 2010
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
86%
Turbo Frequency
3.466 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-4170 May 1st, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon W3670 Aug 29th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
May 1st, 2014 | Released | Aug 29th, 2010 |
| $117.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1150 | Socket | LGA1366 |
54 W | Power Consumption | 130 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1600 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
Intel HD 4400 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
