Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 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 Threadripper 1950X is 416 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 99% cheaper than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - $7.99 vs $788.88
- Up to 99% better value when playing F1 22 than Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - $0.03 vs $2.91 per FPS
- Consumes up to 22% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X - 140 vs 180 Watts
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
- Performs up to 1% better in F1 22 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 271 vs 269 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 32 vs 8 threads
F1 22
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
269
99%
Value, $/FPS
$0.03/FPS
100%
Price, $
$7.99
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $7.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 181 minutes ago
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
FPS
271
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.91/FPS
1%
Price, $
$788.88
1%
FPS Winner
Buy for $788.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 181 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Aug 10th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Aug 10th, 2017 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 180 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |