Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 1600X 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 Ryzen 5 1600X is 295 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 72% cheaper than Ryzen 5 1600X - £49.95 vs £178.58
- Up to 72% better value when playing FIFA 23 than Ryzen 5 1600X - £0.36 vs £1.28 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
- Performs up to 1% better in FIFA 23 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 140 vs 138 FPS
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 95 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 12 vs 8 threads
FIFA 23
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
138
98%
Value, £/FPS
£0.36/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 166 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 11th, 2017
FPS
140
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1.28/FPS
28%
Price, £
£178.58
27%
FPS Winner
Buy for £178.58 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 166 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Apr 11th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Apr 11th, 2017 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Summit Ridge |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 95 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |