The FX-9370 is the comparison's loser – it's at least 2x slower gaming CPU than the Xeon E5-1620 v4 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's only $20.10 cheaper!
Advantages of the FX-9370
- Up to 9% cheaper – $212.02 vs $232.12
- Has an integrated GPU, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 cannot run games without a dedicated GPU
Advantages of the Xeon E5-1620 v4
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- A much better value for money for gaming
- Consumes up to 36% less energy – 140 vs 220 Watts
FX-9370 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Jun 20th, 2016
Average FPS
180
100%
Min 1% FPS
120
100%
Price, $
$232.12
91%
Value, $/FPS
$1.28/FPS
98%
FX-9370 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4 in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The FX-9370 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The FX-9370 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4 in core CPU performance specifications
FX-9370
Jun 11th, 2013
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
8 MB
80%
Base Frequency
4.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1866 MHz
78%
Xeon E5-1620 v4
Jun 20th, 2016
Cores
4-core
50%
L3 Cache
10 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
80%
Turbo Frequency
3.8 GHz
81%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
FX-9370 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
---|---|---|
General | ||
Jun 11th, 2013 | Release Date | Jun 20th, 2016 |
Not Available | MSRP | $294.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
AMD Socket AM3+ | Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
Vishera | Codename | Broadwell-E/EP |
220 W | Power Consumption | 140 W |
Performance | ||
8 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 8 |
4.4 GHz | Base Frequency | 3.5 GHz |
4.7 GHz | Turbo Frequency | 3.8 GHz |
8 MB | L3 Cache | 10 MB |
Other Features | ||
DDR3 @ 1866 MHz | RAM | DDR4 @ 2400 MHz |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated Graphics | No |
Yes | Overclockable | No |