Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Ryzen 5 3600XT outperforms the more expensive Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Ryzen 5 3600XT is 1112 days newer than the more expensive Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT
- Performs up to 6% better in Elden Ring than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 118 FPS
- Up to 28% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $122.92 vs $169.73
- Up to 32% better value when playing Elden Ring than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $1.09 vs $1.6 per FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 95 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 12 vs 8 threads
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
FPS
125
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.09/FPS
100%
Price, €
€136.44
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €136.44 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 3902 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
118
94.39999999999999%
Value, €/FPS
€1.6/FPS
68.125%
Price, €
€188.4
72%
Buy for €188.4 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 3899 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Single-Core
1088
63.84976525821596%
Multi-Core
3898
53.973968429797836%
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Jul 7th, 2019 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Ryzen 5 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Matisse | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 4 |
12 | Threads | 8 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.5 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 140 W |
7 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
38.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |