In Battlefield 6, the Xeon E5-1620 v2 is quite a bit slower than the Ryzen 7 5700G. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5-1620 v2
No clear advantages
Ryzen 7 5700G
- Up to 52% faster in Battlefield 6 – 96 vs 63 FPS
- Up to 52% faster in Battlefield 6
- Is 7 years and 7 months newer – Apr 13, 2021 vs Sep 10, 2013
- Is 7 years and 7 months newer
- Consumes up to 50% less energy – 65 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 50% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Ryzen 7 5700G: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Ryzen 7 5700G
Apr 13th, 2021
Average FPS
96 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
72 FPS
100%
Price, $
$185.29
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.93/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Ryzen 7 5700G in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Ryzen 7 5700G in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-1620 v2
Sep 10th, 2013
Cores
4-core
50%
L3 Cache
10 MB
62%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
97%
Turbo Frequency
3.9 GHz
85%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
58%
Ryzen 7 5700G
Apr 13th, 2021
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
16 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
3200 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-1620 v2 Sep 10th, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Ryzen 7 5700G Apr 13th, 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 10th, 2013 | Released | Apr 13th, 2021 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011 | Socket | AM4 |
| 130 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 1866 MHz (DDR3) | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Radeon Vega 8 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
