Key Differences
In short — Core i7-13700K 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 i7-13700K is 2290 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 84% cheaper than Core i7-13700K - £49.95 vs £307.67
- Up to 79% better value when playing Total War: WARHAMMER III than Core i7-13700K - £0.30 vs £1.46 per FPS
Advantages of Core i7-13700K
- Performs up to 26% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 211 vs 167 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 - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
167
79%
Value, £/FPS
£0.3/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 168 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
211
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1.46/FPS
21%
Price, £
£307.67
16%
FPS Winner
Buy for £307.67 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 • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i7-13700K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.4 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |