Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3950X 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 9 3950X is 1253 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 90% cheaper than Ryzen 9 3950X - £49.95 vs £499.99
- Up to 88% better value when playing War Thunder than Ryzen 9 3950X - £0.31 vs £2.53 per FPS
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3950X
- Performs up to 22% better in War Thunder than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 198 vs 162 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 - 32 vs 8 threads
War Thunder
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
162
81%
Value, £/FPS
£0.31/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 10689 minutes ago
Buy for £499.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 10901 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Nov 25th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 3950X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Nov 25th, 2019 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Matisse |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 105 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |