Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the cheaper Ryzen 3 3200G on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Ryzen 3 3200G is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 1112 days older than the cheaper Ryzen 3 3200G.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 0% better in Rocket League than Ryzen 3 3200G - 701 vs 699 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Ryzen 3 3200G - 8 vs 4 threads
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
- Up to 43% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $77.38 vs $136.62
- Up to 42% better value when playing Rocket League than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $0.11 vs $0.19 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
Rocket League
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
701
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.19/FPS
57%
Price, $
$136.62
56%
FPS Winner
Buy for $136.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 206 minutes ago
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
FPS
699
99%
Value, $/FPS
$0.11/FPS
100%
Price, $
$77.38
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $77.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 206 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 3 3200G |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2019 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 3 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Picasso |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 4 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Vega 8 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |