Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 3700U 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 930 days older than Ryzen 7 3700U.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 3700U
- Consumes up to 89% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 15 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 3% better in Far Cry 5 than Ryzen 7 3700U - 200 vs 195 FPS
Far Cry 5
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Ryzen 7 3700U
Mobile • Jan 6th, 2019
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
|---|---|---|
Jan 6th, 2019 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
| Ryzen 7 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
| Picasso | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
| AMD Socket FP5 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Mobile | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 4 |
| 8 | Threads | 8 |
| 2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
15 W | TDP | 140 W |
12 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 23.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Radeon Vega 10 | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
