Key Differences
In short — Core i9-11900K 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 i9-11900K is 1730 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 46% cheaper than Core i9-11900K - $99.89 vs $185.71
- Up to 41% better value when playing The Last of Us Part I than Core i9-11900K - $0.84 vs $1.43 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-11900K
- Performs up to 9% better in The Last of Us Part I than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 144 vs 132 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 - 16 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
The Last of Us Part I
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
132
91%
Value, €/FPS
€0.84/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 56 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
144
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.43/FPS
58%
Price, €
€206.14
53%
FPS Winner
Buy for €206.14 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 55 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i9-11900K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.3 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 750 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |