Key Differences
In short — Core i7-10700K 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 Core i7-10700K is 1410 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 43% cheaper than Core i7-10700K - $136.62 vs $241.0
- Up to 38% better value when playing Total War: WARHAMMER III than Core i7-10700K - $0.82 vs $1.32 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i7-10700K
- Performs up to 9% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 182 vs 167 FPS
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
167
91%
Value, $/FPS
$0.82/FPS
100%
Price, $
$136.62
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $136.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 138 minutes ago
Buy for $241 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Intel Core i7-10700K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i7 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 8 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.1 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |