Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms FX-8150 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 1713 days newer than FX-8150.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 4% better in Assassin's Creed Valhalla than FX-8150 - 173 vs 167 FPS
Advantages of AMD FX-8150
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FX-8150
Desktop • Oct 12th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD FX-8150 |
|---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Oct 12th, 2011 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | FX |
| Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Zambezi |
| Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 8 |
| 8 | Threads | 8 |
| 3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
| 3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
| 140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 18.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
