Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 7 7700 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 7700 is 2399 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 82% cheaper than Ryzen 7 7700 - £49.95 vs £274.07
- Up to 77% better value when playing Battlefield V than Ryzen 7 7700 - £0.22 vs £0.95 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 7700
- Performs up to 26% better in Battlefield V than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 289 vs 229 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield V
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
229
79%
Value, £/FPS
£0.22/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 136 minutes ago
Buy for £274.07 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 14th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 7 7700 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 14th, 2023 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raphael |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.3 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |