Key Differences
In short — Core i5-2500K outperforms Xeon E5-1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i5-2500K is 422 days older than Xeon E5-1620.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-2500K - 8 vs 4 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-2500K
- Performs up to 1% better in Rust than Xeon E5-1620 - 162 vs 160 FPS
- Consumes up to 27% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 - 95 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 doesn't have integrated graphics
Rust
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Jan 9th, 2011
FPS
162
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.23/FPS
100%
Price, £
£37.72
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £37.72 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 14208 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Server/Workstation • Mar 6th, 2012
Desktop • Jan 9th, 2011
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 | vs | Intel Core i5-2500K |
---|---|---|
Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 9th, 2011 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Sandy Bridge-EP | Codename | Sandy Bridge |
Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 4 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
130 W | TDP | 95 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 33.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 3000 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |