In Deathloop, the Xeon E5620 is slightly slower than the Core i3-330M. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5620
- Is 2 months and 7 days newer – Mar 16, 2010 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 2 months and 7 days newer
Core i3-330M
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop – 227 vs 222 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 56% less energy – 35 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 56% 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 E5620 vs Core i3-330M: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
227 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
170 FPS
100%
Price, $
$98.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i3-330M in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i3-330M in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5620
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
3 MB
25%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
89%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5620 Mar 16th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Laptop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGAG1 |
| 80W | 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 |
