Key Differences
In short — Core i5-12400 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 i5-12400 is 2024 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 98% cheaper than Core i5-12400 - £49.95 vs £2511.32
- Up to 98% better value when playing Need For Speed Unbound than Core i5-12400 - £0.37 vs £15.89 per FPS
Advantages of Core i5-12400
- Performs up to 17% better in Need For Speed Unbound than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 158 vs 135 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 12 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Need For Speed Unbound
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
135
85%
Value, £/FPS
£0.37/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 169 minutes ago
Buy for £2,511.32 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 168 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i5-12400 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 |
No | Overclockable | No |