Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms Xeon E5-2630 v3 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 651 days newer than Xeon E5-2630 v3.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 2% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Xeon E5-2630 v3 - 126 vs 123 FPS
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3
- Consumes up to 39% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 85 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
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
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Server/Workstation • Sep 8th, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 8th, 2014 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Haswell |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Server |
4 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.4 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 85 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 24.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |