In Atomfall, the Core i7-620M is slightly slower than the Xeon E5-2643. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i7-620M
- 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 E5-2643
- Up to 3% faster in Atomfall – 192 vs 186 FPS
- Up to 3% faster in Atomfall
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer – Mar 06, 2012 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i7-620M vs Xeon E5-2643: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
192 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
144 FPS
100%
Price, $
$100.7
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.52/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-620M vs Xeon E5-2643 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-620M vs Xeon E5-2643 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-620M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
4 MB
40%
Base Frequency
2.677 GHz
81%
Turbo Frequency
3.333 GHz
95%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
100%
Xeon E5-2643
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
10 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i7-620M Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5-2643 Mar 6th, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Release Date | Mar 6th, 2012 |
| $332.00 | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Server |
| Intel BGA 1288 | Socket | LGA2011 |
35W | Power Consumption | 130W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1066 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | DDR3 |
HD Graphics (Ironlake) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
