Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F 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 i9-10900F is 1410 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 44% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $136.62 vs $244.0
- Up to 39% better value when playing Far Cry 5 than Core i9-10900F - $0.68 vs $1.12 per FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 8% better in Far Cry 5 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 217 vs 200 FPS
- Consumes up to 54% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 65 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 20 vs 8 threads
Far Cry 5
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
200
92%
Value, $/FPS
$0.68/FPS
100%
Price, $
$136.62
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $136.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 35 minutes ago
Buy for $244 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 39 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 i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 20 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |