Key Differences
In short — Core i9-13900KF 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 i9-13900KF is 2290 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 89% cheaper than Core i9-13900KF - £49.95 vs £465.99
- Up to 87% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i9-13900KF - £0.28 vs £2.1 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-13900KF
- Performs up to 23% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 222 vs 180 FPS
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 32 vs 8 threads
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
180
81%
Value, £/FPS
£0.28/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 112 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
222
100%
Value, £/FPS
£2.1/FPS
13%
Price, £
£465.99
10%
FPS Winner
Buy for £465.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 338 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i9-13900KF |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 24 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.8 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 30.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |