In Deathloop, the Xeon E5-1620 is slightly slower than the Core i5-650. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-1620
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer – Mar 06, 2012 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer
Core i5-650
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 222 vs 220 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 44% less energy – 73 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 44% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-1620 vs Core i5-650: Comparison of performance and price
Xeon E5-1620
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
220 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
165 FPS
99%
Price, $
$232.12
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.05/FPS
100%
![Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Quad-core [4 Core] 3.50 GHz Processor - Socket LGA 2011-v3](https://howmanyfps.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/static/cpus/B01EA1QY04.jpg)
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-1620 vs Core i5-650 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-1620 vs Core i5-650 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-1620
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
10 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
4 MB
40%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
89%
Turbo Frequency
3.466 GHz
91%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1333 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-1620 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-650 Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | $176.00 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | LGA1156 |
| 130W | Power Consumption | 73W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1333 MHz (DDR3) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
