Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 7 3800XT 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 7 3800XT is 1478 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 86% cheaper than Ryzen 7 3800XT - £49.95 vs £365.0
- Up to 85% better value when playing Battlefield 2042 than Ryzen 7 3800XT - £0.32 vs £2.16 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT
- Performs up to 8% better in Battlefield 2042 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 169 vs 156 FPS
- Consumes up to 25% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 105 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
156
92%
Value, £/FPS
£0.32/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 193 minutes ago
Buy for £365 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 192 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2020 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Matisse |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 105 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |