Key Differences
In short — Core i9-13900F outperforms Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i9-13900F is 2389 days newer than Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-13900F
- Performs up to 10% better in Dead Space than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 164 vs 149 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 32 vs 8 threads
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
149
90.85365853658537%
Value, £/FPS
£0.34/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 3977 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Single-Core
1088
39.853479853479854%
Multi-Core
3898
22.63778384342877%
Intel Core i9-13900F | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Jan 4th, 2023 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Core i9 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Raptor Lake | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
24 | Cores | 4 |
32 | Threads | 8 |
2.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
5.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Not Available | TDP | 140 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
20.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |