Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F 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 Core i5-10400F is 1410 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 53% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - £49.95 vs £105.56
- Up to 51% better value when playing Baldur's Gate 3 than Core i5-10400F - £0.44 vs £0.9 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 3% better in Baldur's Gate 3 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 117 vs 114 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 - 12 vs 8 threads
Baldur's Gate 3
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
114
97%
Value, £/FPS
£0.44/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 111 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
117
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.9/FPS
48%
Price, £
£105.56
47%
FPS Winner
Buy for £105.56 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 111 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |