In Deathloop, the Xeon E5620 is slightly faster than the Core i5-9400. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5620
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop – 222 vs 219 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Deathloop
Core i5-9400
- Is 8 years and 7 months newer – Oct 19, 2018 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 8 years and 7 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 i5-9400: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
Average FPS
219 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
164 FPS
98%
Price, $
$129.82
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.59/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i5-9400 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5620 vs Core i5-9400 in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5620
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
83%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
65%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
9 MB
75%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5620 Mar 16th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400 Oct 19th, 2018 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Oct 19th, 2018 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 80W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | UHD 630 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
