Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 7 3700X 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 7 3700X is 1112 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 86% cheaper than Ryzen 7 3700X - £49.95 vs £354.25
- Up to 84% better value when playing World of Warcraft than Ryzen 7 3700X - £0.29 vs £1.85 per FPS
Advantages of Ryzen 7 3700X
- Performs up to 11% better in World of Warcraft than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 192 vs 173 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 - 16 vs 8 threads
World of Warcraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
173
90%
Value, £/FPS
£0.29/FPS
100%
Price, £
£49.95
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £49.95 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 180 minutes ago
Buy for £354.25 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 180 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Ryzen 7 3700X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2019 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Matisse |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |