Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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 9 7950X3D is 2389 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D
- Performs up to 31% better in Battlefield V than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 300 vs 229 FPS
- Consumes up to 14% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 120 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 32 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 66% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - $232.12 vs $689.99
- Up to 56% better value when playing Battlefield V than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - $1.01 vs $2.3 per FPS
Battlefield V
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
300
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.3/FPS
44%
Price, $
$689.99
33%
FPS Winner
Buy for $689.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 56 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
229
76%
Value, $/FPS
$1.01/FPS
100%
Price, $
$232.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 58 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | vs | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
Jan 4th, 2023 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Ryzen 9 | Collection | Xeon E5 |
Raphael | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
AMD Socket AM5 | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
16 | Cores | 4 |
32 | Threads | 8 |
4.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
5.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
120 W | TDP | 140 W |
5 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
42.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Radeon Graphics | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |