Key Differences
In short — Core i5-12400 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 Core i5-12400 is 2024 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 12% cheaper than Core i5-12400 - $99.89 vs $113.96
- Up to 1% better value when playing A Plague Tale: Requiem than Core i5-12400 - $0.87 vs $0.88 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-12400
- Performs up to 13% better in A Plague Tale: Requiem than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 144 vs 127 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 12 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
127
88%
Value, €/FPS
€0.87/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 40 minutes ago
Buy for €126.5 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 39 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i5-12400 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 |
No | Overclockable | No |