In Deathloop, the Core i5-7400T is slightly slower than the Xeon X5680. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i5-7400T
- Is 6 years and 10 months newer – Jan 03, 2017 vs Feb 14, 2010
- Is 6 years and 10 months newer
- Consumes up to 73% less energy – 35 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 73% 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 X5680
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 220 vs 218 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i5-7400T vs Xeon X5680: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-7400T
Jan 3rd, 2017
Average FPS
218 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
164 FPS
99%
Price, $
$78.02
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.35/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-7400T vs Xeon X5680 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-7400T vs Xeon X5680 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-7400T
Jan 3rd, 2017
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
6 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
72%
Turbo Frequency
3 GHz
83%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Xeon X5680
Feb 14th, 2010
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.333 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-7400T Jan 3rd, 2017 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon X5680 Feb 14th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jan 3rd, 2017 | Released | Feb 14th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1366 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 130 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2400 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
HD 630 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
