Key Differences
In short — Core i7-13700K 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 i7-13700K is 2290 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Core i7-13700K
- Performs up to 33% better in World of Warcraft than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 230 vs 173 FPS
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 84% cheaper than Core i7-13700K - £49.95 vs £313.56
- Up to 79% better value when playing World of Warcraft than Core i7-13700K - £0.29 vs £1.36 per FPS
World of Warcraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
230
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1.36/FPS
21%
Price, £
£313.56
15%
FPS Winner
Buy for £313.56 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 122 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
173
75%
Value, £/FPS
£0.29/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 122 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Core i7-13700K | vs | Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Sep 27th, 2022 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Core i7 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Raptor Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
16 | Cores | 4 |
24 | Threads | 8 |
3.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
5.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 140 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
34.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
UHD Graphics 770 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |