Key Differences
In short — Core i5-12600KF 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 i5-12600KF is 1963 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 71% cheaper than Core i5-12600KF - £49.95 vs £169.39
- Up to 63% better value when playing World of Warcraft than Core i5-12600KF - £0.29 vs £0.78 per FPS
Advantages of Core i5-12600KF
- Performs up to 25% better in World of Warcraft than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 217 vs 173 FPS
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
World of Warcraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
173
80%
Value, £/FPS
£0.29/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7457 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
FPS
217
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.78/FPS
37%
Price, £
£169.39
29%
FPS Winner
Buy for £169.39 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7457 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i5-12600KF |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Nov 4th, 2021 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |