Key Differences
In short — Core i5-9400F 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 i5-9400F is 932 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 61% cheaper than Core i5-9400F - £49.95 vs £127.95
- Up to 60% better value when playing Elden Ring than Core i5-9400F - £0.42 vs £1.06 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-9400F - 8 vs 6 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-9400F
- Performs up to 3% better in Elden Ring than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 121 vs 118 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
118
97%
Value, £/FPS
£0.42/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 128 minutes ago
Buy for £127.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 127 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i5-9400F |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 8th, 2019 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Coffee Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 6 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |