Key Differences
In short — Core i9-12900KF 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 i9-12900KF is 1963 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-12900KF
- Performs up to 18% better in FINAL FANTASY XIV: Endwalker than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 284 vs 240 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
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 85% cheaper than Core i9-12900KF - £49.95 vs £323.97
- Up to 82% better value when playing FINAL FANTASY XIV: Endwalker than Core i9-12900KF - £0.21 vs £1.14 per FPS
FINAL FANTASY XIV: Endwalker
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
FPS
284
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1.14/FPS
18%
Price, £
£323.97
15%
FPS Winner
Buy for £323.97 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 9980 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
240
84%
Value, £/FPS
£0.21/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 9769 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-12900KF | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Nov 4th, 2021 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Core i9 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Alder Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
16 | Cores | 4 |
24 | Threads | 8 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 140 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
32.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |