In The Callisto Protocol, the Core i7-620M is quite a bit slower than the Core i9-14900F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i7-620M
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i9-14900F
- Up to 61% faster in The Callisto Protocol – 167 vs 104 FPS
- Up to 61% faster in The Callisto Protocol
- Is 14 years newer – Jan 08, 2024 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 14 years newer
The Callisto Protocol FPS Calculator
Core i7-620M vs Core i9-14900F: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i9-14900F
Jan 8th, 2024
Average FPS
167 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
122 FPS
100%
Price, $
$476
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.85/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-620M vs Core i9-14900F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-620M vs Core i9-14900F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-620M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
4 MB
11%
Base Frequency
2.677 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.333 GHz
57%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
19%
Core i9-14900F
Jan 8th, 2024
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
75%
Turbo Frequency
5.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i7-620M Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-14900F Jan 8th, 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Released | Jan 8th, 2024 |
$332.00 | MSRP | $524.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1288 | Socket | LGA1700 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1066 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
