Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3900XT outperforms Xeon E5-1620 v2 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 3900XT is 2492 days newer than Xeon E5-1620 v2.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT
- Performs up to 5% better in Dead Space than Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 154 vs 146 FPS
- Consumes up to 19% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 105 vs 130 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 24 vs 8 threads
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Xeon E5-1620 v2
Server/Workstation • Sep 10th, 2013
Ryzen 9 3900XT
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v2
Server/Workstation • Sep 10th, 2013
Single-Core
644
37.24696356275304%
Multi-Core
2356
23.489531405782653%
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 10th, 2013 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2020 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Matisse |
| Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 12 |
| 8 | Threads | 24 |
| 3.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
| 3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
| 130 W | TDP | 105 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
| 37.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
