Key Differences
In short — Core i7-7700 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 i7-7700 is 197 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 18% cheaper than Core i7-7700 - $99.89 vs $122.11
- Up to 16% better value when playing A Plague Tale: Requiem than Core i7-7700 - $0.87 vs $1.03 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i7-7700
- Performs up to 3% better in A Plague Tale: Requiem than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 131 vs 127 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- 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
96%
Value, €/FPS
€0.87/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 139 minutes ago
Buy for €135.54 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 139 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i7-7700 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Kaby Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | HD 630 |
No | Overclockable | No |