In Battlefield 6, the Core i7-620M is quite a bit slower than the Core i9-9920X. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i7-620M
- Consumes up to 79% less energy – 35 vs 165 Watts
- Consumes up to 79% 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 i9-9920X
- Up to 34% faster in Battlefield 6 – 82 vs 61 FPS
- Up to 34% faster in Battlefield 6
- Is 8 years and 9 months newer – Oct 19, 2018 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 8 years and 9 months newer
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
Core i7-620M vs Core i9-9920X: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i9-9920X
Oct 19th, 2018
Average FPS
82 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
61 FPS
100%
Price, $
$698.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$8.52/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-620M vs Core i9-9920X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-620M vs Core i9-9920X in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-620M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
17%
L3 Cache
4 MB
21%
Base Frequency
2.677 GHz
76%
Turbo Frequency
3.333 GHz
74%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
40%
Core i9-9920X
Oct 19th, 2018
Cores
12-core
100%
L3 Cache
19.25 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.5 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i7-620M Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-9920X Oct 19th, 2018 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Released | Oct 19th, 2018 |
$332.00 | MSRP | $1,189.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1288 | Socket | LGA2066 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 165 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1066 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
