In Atomfall, the Xeon E5-2650 is slightly slower than the FX-9370. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-2650
- Consumes up to 57% less energy – 95 vs 220 Watts
- Consumes up to 57% less energy
FX-9370
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall – 190 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Atomfall
- Is 1 year and 3 months newer – Jun 11, 2013 vs Mar 06, 2012
- Is 1 year and 3 months 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 E5-2650 vs FX-9370: Comparison of performance and price
Xeon E5-2650
Mar 6th, 2012
Average FPS
188 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
99%
Price, $
$129.94
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.69/FPS
100%
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-2650 vs FX-9370 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-2650 vs FX-9370 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-2650
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
45%
Turbo Frequency
2.8 GHz
60%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
FX-9370
Jun 11th, 2013
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
40%
Base Frequency
4.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-2650 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | FX-9370 Jun 11th, 2013 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 11th, 2013 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | AM3+ |
95W | Power Consumption | 220W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1866 MHz (DDR3) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
