Key Differences
In short — Core i7-12700F 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 i7-12700F is 2024 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Core i7-12700F
- Performs up to 12% better in Elden Ring than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 132 vs 118 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 - 20 vs 8 threads
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 79% cheaper than Core i7-12700F - £49.95 vs £235.0
- Up to 76% better value when playing Elden Ring than Core i7-12700F - £0.42 vs £1.78 per FPS
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Buy for £235 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 140 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
118
89%
Value, £/FPS
£0.42/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 140 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i7-12700F | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Jan 4th, 2022 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Core i7 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Alder Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
12 | Cores | 4 |
20 | Threads | 8 |
2.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 140 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
21.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |