Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the more expensive Athlon 3000G on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 1248 days older than the more expensive Athlon 3000G.
Advantages of AMD Athlon 3000G
- Consumes up to 75% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 35 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 0% better in Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order than Athlon 3000G - 214 vs 213 FPS
- Up to 17% cheaper than Athlon 3000G - £49.95 vs £60.0
- Up to 18% better value when playing Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order than Athlon 3000G - £0.23 vs £0.28 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Athlon 3000G - 8 vs 4 threads
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Buy for £60 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 130 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
214
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.23/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 130 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Nov 20th, 2019
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Athlon 3000G | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Nov 20th, 2019 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Athlon | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Picasso | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
4 | Threads | 8 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 140 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Radeon Vega 3 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |