Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the cheaper Ryzen 5 2400G on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Ryzen 5 2400G is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 602 days older than the cheaper Ryzen 5 2400G.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
- Up to 42% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $135.0 vs $232.12
- Up to 42% better value when playing A Plague Tale: Requiem than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $1.07 vs $1.83 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 A Plague Tale: Requiem than Ryzen 5 2400G - 127 vs 126 FPS
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Feb 12th, 2018
FPS
126
99.21259842519686%
Value, $/FPS
$1.07/FPS
100%
Price, $
$135
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $135 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 58294 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
127
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.83/FPS
58.46994535519126%
Price, $
$232.12
58%
FPS Winner
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 58294 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Feb 12th, 2018
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Feb 12th, 2018
Single-Core
1057
97.15073529411765%
Multi-Core
3294
84.50487429451%
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Feb 12th, 2018 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Ryzen 5 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Raven Ridge | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM4 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 140 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Radeon RX Vega 11 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |