Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 3400G outperforms Xeon E5-1620 v2 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 5 3400G is 2126 days newer than Xeon E5-1620 v2.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
- Performs up to 10% better in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 than Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 102 vs 93 FPS
- Consumes up to 50% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 65 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 doesn't have integrated graphics
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
FPS
102
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1/FPS
100%
Price, €
€101.54
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €101.54 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 10202 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Server/Workstation • Sep 10th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 |
---|---|---|
Jul 7th, 2019 | Release Date | Sep 10th, 2013 |
Ryzen 5 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Picasso | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
3.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 130 W |
12 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
37.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
Radeon RX Vega 11 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |