In Rust, the Xeon E5620 is slightly slower than the Core i3-6100. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5620
No clear advantages
Core i3-6100
- Up to 5% faster in Rust – 218 vs 208 FPS
- Up to 5% faster in Rust
- Is 5 years and 5 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 5 years and 5 months newer
- Consumes up to 36% less energy – 51 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 36% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Rust FPS Calculator
Xeon E5620 vs Core i3-6100: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i3-6100
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
218 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
49 FPS
100%
Price, $
$70.65
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.32/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i3-6100 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i3-6100 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5620
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
65%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i3-6100
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
4 MB
33%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5620 Mar 16th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-6100 Sep 1st, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 80W | Power Consumption | 51W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2133 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD 530 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
