Key Differences
In short — Core i9-12900K 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 i9-12900K is 1963 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 18% cheaper than Core i9-12900K - $188.40 vs $230.09
- Up to 4% better value when playing Battlefield IV than Core i9-12900K - $0.52 vs $0.54 per FPS
Advantages of Core i9-12900K
- Performs up to 18% better in Battlefield IV than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 474 vs 400 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 - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
400
84%
Value, €/FPS
€0.52/FPS
100%
Price, €
€209.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €209.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 76 minutes ago
Buy for €255.4 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 81 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i9-12900K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Nov 4th, 2021 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |