Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms FX-4300 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 1336 days newer than FX-4300.
Advantages of AMD FX-4300
- Consumes up to 32% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 95 vs 140 Watts
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 3% better in Dead Space than FX-4300 - 149 vs 144 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-4300 - 8 vs 4 threads
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 23rd, 2012
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD FX-4300 | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Oct 23rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
FX | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Vishera | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
4 | Threads | 8 |
3.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
95 W | TDP | 140 W |
32 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
19.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |