In Deathloop, the Xeon E5-2665 is slightly slower than the Core i3-330M. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-2665
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer – Mar 06, 2012 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 years and 1 month newer
Core i3-330M
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop – 228 vs 221 FPS
- Up to 3% faster in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 70% less energy – 35 vs 115 Watts
- Consumes up to 70% 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 E5-2665 vs Core i3-330M: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
228 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
171 FPS
100%
Price, $
$98.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-2665 vs Core i3-330M in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-2665 vs Core i3-330M in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-2665
Mar 6th, 2012
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
3 MB
15%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
89%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-2665 Mar 6th, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Laptop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | LGAG1 |
| 115W | Power Consumption | 35W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 1066 MHz (DDR3) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
