Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i3-7100 outperforms the more expensive Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i3-7100 is 197 days newer than the more expensive Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-7100 - 8 vs 4 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i3-7100
- Performs up to 6% better in Starfield than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 56 vs 53 FPS
- Up to 55% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $62.0 vs $136.62
- Up to 57% better value when playing Starfield than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $1.11 vs $2.58 per FPS
- Consumes up to 64% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 51 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $136.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 168 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
FPS
56
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.11/FPS
100%
Price, $
$62
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 168 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i3-7100 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i3 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Kaby Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 4 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
140 W | TDP | 51 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 630 |
No | Overclockable | No |