Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F 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 i5-10400F is 1410 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 2% better in Rocket League than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 718 vs 701 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 12 vs 8 threads
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 49% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - £49.95 vs £98.8
- Up to 50% better value when playing Rocket League than Core i5-10400F - £0.07 vs £0.14 per FPS
Rocket League
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality
Buy for £98.8 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11270 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
701
97%
Value, £/FPS
£0.07/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 11058 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-10400F | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Core i5 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Comet Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 4 |
12 | Threads | 8 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 140 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |