In Deathloop, the Core i3-8100 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5640. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-8100
- Is 7 years and 6 months newer – Oct 05, 2017 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 7 years and 6 months newer
- Consumes up to 19% less energy – 65 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 19% 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 E5640
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop – 222 vs 218 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i3-8100 vs Xeon E5640: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-8100
Oct 5th, 2017
Average FPS
218 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
164 FPS
99%
Price, $
$120.32
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.55/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-8100 vs Xeon E5640 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-8100 vs Xeon E5640 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-8100
Oct 5th, 2017
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
6 MB
50%
Base Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Xeon E5640
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.666 GHz
74%
Turbo Frequency
2.933 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-8100 Oct 5th, 2017 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5640 Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 5th, 2017 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| $117.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1366 |
65W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2400 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
UHD Graphics 630 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
