In Atomfall, the Core i5-9400 is slightly faster than the Xeon E5620. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i5-9400
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall – 209 vs 187 FPS
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall
- Is 8 years and 7 months newer – Oct 19, 2018 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 8 years and 7 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 E5620
No clear advantages
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i5-9400 vs Xeon E5620: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
Average FPS
209 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
156 FPS
100%
Price, $
$135.44
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.64/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-9400 vs Xeon E5620 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-9400 vs Xeon E5620 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
9 MB
75%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Xeon E5620
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
83%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
65%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-9400 Oct 19th, 2018 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5620 Mar 16th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 19th, 2018 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1366 |
65W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
UHD 630 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
