Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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 7950X3D is 3403 days newer than Xeon E5-1620 v2.
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7950X3D
- Performs up to 29% better in Battlefield IV than Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 490 vs 379 FPS
- Consumes up to 8% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 120 vs 130 Watts
- 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
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
490
100%
Value, £/FPS
£2.41/FPS
100%
Price, £
£1179.89
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £1,179.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 245 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Server/Workstation • Sep 10th, 2013
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v2 | vs | Ryzen 9 7950X3D |
---|---|---|
Sep 10th, 2013 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
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 | 4.2 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.7 GHz |
130 W | TDP | 120 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
37.0x | Multiplier | 42.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |