Key Differences
In short — Core i5-4670 outperforms Xeon E5-1620 v3 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i5-4670 is 463 days older than Xeon E5-1620 v3.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-4670 - 8 vs 4 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-4670
- Performs up to 2% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Xeon E5-1620 v3 - 127 vs 125 FPS
- Consumes up to 40% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 - 84 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 doesn't have integrated graphics
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Xeon E5-1620 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Core i5-4670
Desktop • Jun 2nd, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v3
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Single-Core
1078
91.97952218430035%
Multi-Core
3819
100%
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 | vs | Intel Core i5-4670 |
|---|---|---|
Sep 8th, 2014 | Release Date | Jun 2nd, 2013 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
| Haswell-E/EP | Codename | Haswell |
| Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1150 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 4 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
| 3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| 140 W | TDP | 84 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
