Key Differences
In short — Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the cheaper Core i5-3330 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i5-3330 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Xeon E5-1620 v4 is 1386 days newer than the cheaper Core i5-3330.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Performs up to 3% better in Deathloop than Core i5-3330 - 174 vs 169 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-3330 - 8 vs 4 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i5-3330
- Up to 22% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $106.51 vs $136.62
- Up to 20% better value when playing Deathloop than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $0.63 vs $0.79 per FPS
- Consumes up to 45% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 77 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Deathloop
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
174
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.79/FPS
79%
Price, $
$136.62
77%
FPS Winner
Buy for $136.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 179 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
FPS
169
97%
Value, $/FPS
$0.63/FPS
100%
Price, $
$106.51
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $106.51 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 178 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i5-3330 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 3rd, 2012 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 4 |
8 | Threads | 4 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 77 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 30.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2500 |
No | Overclockable | No |