In Atomfall, the Core i7-3820 is slower than the Core Ultra 9 275HX. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i7-3820
No clear advantages
Core Ultra 9 275HX
- Up to 27% faster in Atomfall – 246 vs 193 FPS
- Up to 27% faster in Atomfall
- Is 12 years and 11 months newer – Jan 13, 2025 vs Feb 13, 2012
- Is 12 years and 11 months newer
- Consumes up to 58% less energy – 55 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 58% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i7-3820 vs Core Ultra 9 275HX: Comparison of performance and price
Core i7-3820
Feb 13th, 2012
Average FPS
193 FPS
78%
Min 1% FPS
145 FPS
79%
Price, $
$151
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.78/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 9 275HX
Jan 13th, 2025
Average FPS
246 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
184 FPS
100%
Price, $
...
Value, $/FPS
...
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-3820 vs Core Ultra 9 275HX in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-3820 vs Core Ultra 9 275HX in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-3820
Feb 13th, 2012
Cores
4-core
17%
L3 Cache
10 MB
28%
Base Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.8 GHz
70%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1600 MHz
25%
Core Ultra 9 275HX
Jan 13th, 2025
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.7 GHz
75%
Turbo Frequency
5.4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i7-3820 Feb 13th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 9 275HX Jan 13th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Feb 13th, 2012 | Released | Jan 13th, 2025 |
| $305.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Laptop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | Intel BGA 2114 |
| 130 W | Power Consumption | 55 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1600 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
| Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
