Key Differences
In short — Core i9-14900K 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 i9-14900K is 2675 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 46% cheaper than Core i9-14900K - $209.12 vs $390.09
- Up to 33% better value when playing Overwatch 2 than Core i9-14900K - $0.62 vs $0.93 per FPS
Advantages of Core i9-14900K
- Performs up to 24% better in Overwatch 2 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 418 vs 338 FPS
- 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
Overwatch 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
338
81%
Value, €/FPS
€0.62/FPS
100%
Price, €
€209.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €209.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7155 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 17th, 2023
FPS
418
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.93/FPS
67%
Price, €
€390.09
53%
FPS Winner
Buy for €390.09 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7153 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Oct 17th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i9-14900K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Oct 17th, 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 | 3.2 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 6.0 GHz |
140 W | TDP | Not Available |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |