Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X outperforms Xeon E5-1620 v2 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 7950X is 3304 days newer than Xeon E5-1620 v2.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v2
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 7950X - 130 vs 170 Watts
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7950X
- Performs up to 31% better in A Plague Tale: Requiem than Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 157 vs 120 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 32 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 doesn't have integrated graphics
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Xeon E5-1620 v2
Server/Workstation • Sep 10th, 2013
Ryzen 9 7950X
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v2 | vs | Ryzen 9 7950X |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 10th, 2013 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Raphael |
| Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 16 |
| 8 | Threads | 32 |
| 3.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
| 3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.7 GHz |
130 W | TDP | 170 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
| 37.0x | Multiplier | 45.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
