Key Differences
In short — Core i7-8700K 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 i7-8700K is 472 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 34% cheaper than Core i7-8700K - $99.89 vs $152.09
- Up to 30% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i7-8700K - $0.62 vs $0.88 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i7-8700K
- Performs up to 6% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 191 vs 180 FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 95 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
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
180
94%
Value, €/FPS
€0.62/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2692 minutes ago
Buy for €168.82 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2691 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i7-8700K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Oct 5th, 2017 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Coffee Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 95 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |