Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7900X 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 7900X is 2290 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 63% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7900X - $136.62 vs $365.55
- Up to 50% better value when playing Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 than Ryzen 9 7900X - $1.35 vs $2.71 per FPS
- Consumes up to 18% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 7900X - 140 vs 170 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 9 7900X
- Performs up to 34% better in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 135 vs 101 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
101
74%
Value, $/FPS
$1.35/FPS
100%
Price, $
$136.62
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $136.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 14 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
135
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.71/FPS
49%
Price, $
$365.55
37%
FPS Winner
Buy for $365.55 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 12 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen 9 7900X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raphael |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 12 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.6 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 170 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 47.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |