Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900KF 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 i9-10900KF is 1410 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 46% cheaper than Core i9-10900KF - $99.89 vs $186.45
- Up to 39% better value when playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition than Core i9-10900KF - $0.56 vs $0.92 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900KF
- Performs up to 14% better in Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 224 vs 197 FPS
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 20 vs 8 threads
Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
197
87%
Value, €/FPS
€0.56/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 180 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
224
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.92/FPS
60%
Price, €
€206.96
53%
FPS Winner
Buy for €206.96 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 179 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900KF |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 20 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.3 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |