Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X 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 Ryzen 9 7950X is 2290 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 53% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7950X - $209.12 vs $446.27
- Up to 25% better value when playing Far Cry 6 than Ryzen 9 7950X - $1.88 vs $2.51 per FPS
- Consumes up to 18% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 7950X - 140 vs 170 Watts
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7950X
- Performs up to 60% better in Far Cry 6 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 178 vs 111 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
Far Cry 6
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
111
62%
Value, €/FPS
€1.88/FPS
100%
Price, €
€209.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €209.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7189 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
178
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.51/FPS
75%
Price, €
€446.27
46%
FPS Winner
Buy for €446.27 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7188 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Ryzen 9 7950X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raphael |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 170 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 45.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |