Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 3900XT outperforms the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 3900XT is 1478 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 29% cheaper than Ryzen 9 3900XT - $232.12 vs $325.0
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT
- Performs up to 8% better in Battlefield 2042 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 168 vs 156 FPS
- Consumes up to 25% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 105 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 24 vs 8 threads
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77114 minutes ago
Buy for $325 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77113 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jul 7th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Single-Core
1088
62.92654713707345%
Multi-Core
3898
38.86340977068794%
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jul 7th, 2020 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Matisse |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 12 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 105 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |