![Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Quad-core [4 Core] 3.50 GHz Processor - Socket LGA 2011-v3](https://howmanyfps.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/static/cpus/B01EA1QY04.jpg)
Buy on Amazon
€188.4
In Stock
AvailabilityMSRP in USD: $294
Availability
MSRP in USD: $294
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the cheaper FX-9370 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 1105 days newer than the cheaper FX-9370.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 9% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than FX-9370 - 126 vs 116 FPS
- Consumes up to 36% less energy than AMD FX-9370 - 140 vs 220 Watts
Advantages of AMD FX-9370
- Up to 18% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $139.97 vs $169.73
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Quad-core [4 Core] 3.50 GHz Processor - Socket LGA 2011-v3
Buy for €188.4 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 76936 minutes ago
AMD FX-9370 Octa-core (8 Core) 4.40 GHz Processor - Socket AM3+Retail Pack
Buy for €155.37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 76934 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FX-9370
Desktop • Jun 11th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD FX-9370 |
|---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jun 11th, 2013 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | FX |
| Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Vishera |
| Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 8 |
| 8 | Threads | 8 |
| 3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
| 3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 220 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 22.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.