Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the cheaper Ryzen 3 2200G on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Ryzen 3 2200G is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 602 days older than the cheaper Ryzen 3 2200G.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
- Up to 5% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $129.35 vs $136.62
- Up to 4% better value when playing World of Tanks than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $0.25 vs $0.26 per 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
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 1% better in World of Tanks than Ryzen 3 2200G - 523 vs 520 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Ryzen 3 2200G - 8 vs 4 threads
World of Tanks
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Feb 12th, 2018
FPS
520
99%
Value, $/FPS
$0.25/FPS
100%
Price, $
$129.35
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $129.35 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 119 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
523
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
96%
Price, $
$136.62
94%
FPS Winner
Buy for $136.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 119 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Feb 12th, 2018
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Feb 12th, 2018 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Ryzen 3 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Raven Ridge | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
4 | Threads | 8 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 140 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Radeon Vega 8 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |