Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms Phenom X4 9650 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 3007 days newer than Phenom X4 9650.
Advantages of AMD Phenom X4 9650
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 95 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 29% better in Cyberpunk 2077 than Phenom X4 9650 - 71 vs 55 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Phenom X4 9650 - 8 vs 4 threads
Cyberpunk 2077
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
RT Overdrive
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
RT Overdrive
Phenom X4 9650
Desktop • Mar 27th, 2008
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Phenom X4 9650 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 27th, 2008 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
| Phenom X4 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Agena | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
| AMD Socket AM2+ | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 4 |
| 4 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 140 W |
| 65 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 11.5x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
