In Deathloop, the Xeon E5-1620 is slightly slower than the Xeon E5530. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-1620
- Is 2 years and 11 months newer – Mar 06, 2012 vs Mar 30, 2009
- Is 2 years and 11 months newer
Xeon E5530
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 223 vs 220 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 38% less energy – 80 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 38% less energy
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-1620 vs Xeon E5530: 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)
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-1620 vs Xeon E5530 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-1620 vs Xeon E5530 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
Xeon E5530
Mar 30th, 2009
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
80%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
67%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
70%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-1620 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Xeon E5530 Mar 30th, 2009 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 30th, 2009 |
| – | MSRP | $530.00 |
Server | Segment | Server |
| LGA2011 | Socket | LGA1366 |
| 130W | Power Consumption | 80W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1066 MHz (DDR3) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
