In Atomfall, the Xeon E5-2640 v3 is slightly slower than the Core i9-12900K. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-2640 v3
- Consumes up to 28% less energy – 90 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 28% less energy
Core i9-12900K
- Up to 18% faster in Atomfall – 239 vs 203 FPS
- Up to 18% faster in Atomfall
- Is 7 years and 1 month newer – Nov 04, 2021 vs Sep 08, 2014
- Is 7 years and 1 month newer
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-2640 v3 vs Core i9-12900K: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i9-12900K
Nov 4th, 2021
Average FPS
239 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
179 FPS
100%
Price, $
$289
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.2/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-2640 v3 vs Core i9-12900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-2640 v3 vs Core i9-12900K in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-2640 v3
Sep 8th, 2014
Cores
8-core
50%
L3 Cache
20 MB
67%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
81%
Turbo Frequency
3.4 GHz
65%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
39%
Core i9-12900K
Nov 4th, 2021
Cores
16-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
5.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
4800 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-2640 v3 Sep 8th, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-12900K Nov 4th, 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 8th, 2014 | Released | Nov 4th, 2021 |
| $939.00 | MSRP | $599.00 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011-3 | Socket | LGA1700 |
90 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 4800 MHz (DDR5) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
