Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i5-9600K 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 Core i5-9600K is 851 days newer than the more expensive Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-9600K - 8 vs 6 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-9600K
- Performs up to 19% better in Starfield than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 63 vs 53 FPS
- Up to 0% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $99.44 vs $99.89
- Up to 16% better value when playing Starfield than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $1.75 vs $2.09 per FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 95 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 107 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
FPS
63
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.75/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.38
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €110.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 106 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i5-9600K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Oct 19th, 2018 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Coffee Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 6 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 95 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD 630 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |