Key Differences
In short — Core i9-13900 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 i9-13900 is 2389 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 72% cheaper than Core i9-13900 - $99.89 vs $356.98
- Up to 54% better value when playing War Thunder than Core i9-13900 - $0.68 vs $1.47 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-13900
- Performs up to 66% better in War Thunder than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 269 vs 162 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 32 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
War Thunder
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
162
60%
Value, €/FPS
€0.68/FPS
100%
Price, €
€110.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €110.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 97 minutes ago
Buy for €396.25 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 95 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i9-13900 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 24 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.0 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.6 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 20.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | No |