In Deathloop, the Core i5-650 is slightly faster than the Xeon E5645. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i5-650
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 224 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 9% less energy – 73 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 9% 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 E5645
- Is 2 months and 7 days newer – Mar 16, 2010 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 months and 7 days newer
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i5-650 vs Xeon E5645: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
224 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
168 FPS
100%
Price, $
$67.81
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.3/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-650 vs Xeon E5645 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-650 vs Xeon E5645 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
4 MB
33%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.466 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1333 MHz
100%
Xeon E5645
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
75%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
77%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-650 Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5645 Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| $176.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1156 | Socket | LGA1366 |
73W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1333 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
