Key Differences
In short — Core i7-4800MQ outperforms Xeon E5-1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i7-4800MQ is 419 days newer than Xeon E5-1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i7-4800MQ
- Performs up to 23% better in Counter-Strike 2 than Xeon E5-1620 - 313 vs 255 FPS
- Consumes up to 64% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 - 47 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 doesn't have integrated graphics
Counter-Strike 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Xeon E5-1620
Server/Workstation • Mar 6th, 2012
Core i7-4800MQ
Mobile • Apr 29th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Xeon E5-1620 | vs | Intel Core i7-4800MQ |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 29th, 2013 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i7 |
| Sandy Bridge-EP | Codename | Haswell |
| Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | Intel Socket G3 |
Server | Segment | Mobile |
| 4 | Cores | 4 |
| 8 | Threads | 8 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
| 130 W | TDP | 47 W |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4600 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
