Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the more expensive FX-4350 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 1148 days newer than the more expensive FX-4350.
Advantages of AMD FX-4350
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 4% better in Battlefield 1 than FX-4350 - 238 vs 229 FPS
- Up to 17% cheaper than FX-4350 - £49.95 vs £59.97
- Up to 19% better value when playing Battlefield 1 than FX-4350 - £0.21 vs £0.26 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-4350 - 8 vs 4 threads
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for £59.97 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 139 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
238
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.21/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 140 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 29th, 2013
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4350 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Apr 29th, 2013 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
FX | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Vishera | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
4 | Threads | 8 |
4.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 140 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
19.5x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |