Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7900X outperforms Xeon E5-1620 v2 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 9 7900X is 3304 days newer than Xeon E5-1620 v2.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v2
- Consumes up to 24% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 7900X - 130 vs 170 Watts
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7900X
- Performs up to 37% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 213 vs 156 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v2 doesn't have integrated graphics
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
213
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.78/FPS
100%
Price, $
$379
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $379 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 181 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Server/Workstation • Sep 10th, 2013
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v2 | vs | Ryzen 9 7900X |
---|---|---|
Sep 10th, 2013 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Raphael |
Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 12 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
3.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.6 GHz |
130 W | TDP | 170 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
37.0x | Multiplier | 47.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |