Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 3400G 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 Ryzen 5 3400G is 1112 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 23% cheaper than Ryzen 5 3400G - £49.95 vs £64.99
- Up to 30% better value when playing Minecraft than Ryzen 5 3400G - £0.07 vs £0.10 per FPS
Advantages of Ryzen 5 3400G
- Performs up to 1% better in Minecraft than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 676 vs 669 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Minecraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
669
99%
Value, £/FPS
£0.07/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 8667 minutes ago
Buy for £64.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 8667 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Ryzen 5 3400G |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2019 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Picasso |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon RX Vega 11 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |