Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7900X 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 7900X is 2290 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 85% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7900X - £49.95 vs £339.0
- Up to 77% better value when playing Far Cry 6 than Ryzen 9 7900X - £0.45 vs £1.92 per FPS
- Consumes up to 18% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 7900X - 140 vs 170 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 7900X
- Performs up to 59% better in Far Cry 6 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 177 vs 111 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Far Cry 6
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
111
62%
Value, £/FPS
£0.45/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77 minutes ago
Buy for £339 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 76 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 7900X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raphael |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 12 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.6 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 170 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 47.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |