Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms Phenom II X4 925 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 2597 days newer than Phenom II X4 925.
Advantages of AMD Phenom II X4 925
- 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 99% better in Diablo IV than Phenom II X4 925 - 159 vs 80 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Phenom II X4 925 - 8 vs 4 threads
Diablo IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Phenom II X4 925
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Phenom II X4 925
Desktop • May 11th, 2009
Single-Core
320
29.411764705882355%
Multi-Core
930
23.858388917393537%
AMD Phenom II X4 925 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| May 11th, 2009 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
| Phenom II X4 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Deneb | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
| AMD Socket AM3 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 4 |
| 4 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 140 W |
| 45 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 14.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
