Key Differences
In short — Core i9-14900KF 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 i9-14900KF is 2675 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 90% cheaper than Core i9-14900KF - £49.95 vs £512.32
- Up to 87% better value when playing Total War: WARHAMMER III than Core i9-14900KF - £0.3 vs £2.35 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-14900KF
- Performs up to 31% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 218 vs 167 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 32 vs 8 threads
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
167
76%
Value, £/FPS
£0.3/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 37 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 17th, 2023
FPS
218
100%
Value, £/FPS
£2.35/FPS
12%
Price, £
£512.32
9%
FPS Winner
Buy for £512.32 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 36 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Oct 17th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i9-14900KF |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Oct 17th, 2023 |
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 | 3.2 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 6.0 GHz |
140 W | TDP | Not Available |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |