Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 7 3800XT outperforms the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen 7 3800XT is 1478 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 56% cheaper than Ryzen 7 3800XT - $99.89 vs $228.49
- Up to 54% better value when playing Assassin's Creed Valhalla than Ryzen 7 3800XT - $0.64 vs $1.38 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT
- Performs up to 6% better in Assassin's Creed Valhalla than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 184 vs 173 FPS
- Consumes up to 25% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 105 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
173
94%
Value, €/FPS
€0.64/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 53 minutes ago
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
FPS
184
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.38/FPS
46%
Price, €
€253.62
43%
FPS Winner
Buy for €253.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 52 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2020 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Matisse |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 105 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |