Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the more expensive Core i7-860 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 2477 days newer than the more expensive Core i7-860.
Advantages of Intel Core i7-860
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 95 vs 140 Watts
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 4% better in Battlefield 1 than Core i7-860 - 238 vs 229 FPS
- Up to 82% cheaper than Core i7-860 - £49.95 vs £270.91
- Up to 82% better value when playing Battlefield 1 than Core i7-860 - £0.21 vs £1.18 per FPS
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 8th, 2009
FPS
229
96.21848739495799%
Value, £/FPS
£1.18/FPS
17.796610169491526%
Price, £
£270.91
18%
Buy for £270.91 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1958 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 1959 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 8th, 2009
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i7-860 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Sep 8th, 2009 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Core i7 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Lynnfield | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1156 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
3.5 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 140 W |
45 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
21.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |