In Deathloop, the Xeon E5620 is slightly faster than the Core i5-6400. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5620
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 221 vs 218 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
Core i5-6400
- Is 5 years and 3 months newer – Jul 02, 2015 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 5 years and 3 months newer
- Consumes up to 19% less energy – 65 vs 80 Watts
- Consumes up to 19% 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 i5-6400: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i5-6400
Jul 2nd, 2015
Average FPS
218 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
163 FPS
98%
Price, $
$99.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.45/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i5-6400 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i5-6400 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5620
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
89%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
81%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-6400
Jul 2nd, 2015
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
6 MB
50%
Base Frequency
2.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5620 Mar 16th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-6400 Jul 2nd, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Jul 2nd, 2015 |
| – | MSRP | $182.00 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 80W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2133 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | HD Graphics 530 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
