In Deathloop, the Core i3-6300 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2640. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-6300
- Is 3 years and 5 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 3 years and 5 months newer
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 51 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% 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 E5-2640
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop – 222 vs 218 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i3-6300 vs Xeon E5-2640: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-6300
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
218 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
163 FPS
98%
Price, $
$88.37
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.4/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-6300 vs Xeon E5-2640 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-6300 vs Xeon E5-2640 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-6300
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
4 MB
27%
Base Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Xeon E5-2640
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
15 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.5 GHz
66%
Turbo Frequency
3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-6300 Sep 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2640 Mar 6th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Mar 6th, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA2011 |
51W | Power Consumption | 95W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2133 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
Intel HD 530 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
