Key Differences
In short — Core i5-13400 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 i5-13400 is 2389 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-13400
- Performs up to 14% better in Battlefield 2042 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 178 vs 156 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 75% cheaper than Core i5-13400 - £49.95 vs £203.0
- Up to 72% better value when playing Battlefield 2042 than Core i5-13400 - £0.32 vs £1.14 per FPS
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for £203 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 305 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
156
87%
Value, £/FPS
£0.32/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 83 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-13400 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Jan 4th, 2023 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Core i5 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Raptor Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
10 | Cores | 4 |
16 | Threads | 8 |
2.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Not Available | TDP | 140 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
25.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
UHD Graphics 730 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |