In Atomfall, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is slower than the Core Ultra 7 265F. However, it's a better value for money, as it's $98 cheaper!
Xeon E5-1620 v3
- Up to 34% cheaper – $189.95 vs $288.00
- Up to 34% cheaper
- Up to 21% better value in Atomfall – $0.93 vs $1.17/FPS
- Up to 21% better value in Atomfall
Core Ultra 7 265F
- Up to 21% faster in Atomfall – 245 vs 203 FPS
- Up to 21% faster in Atomfall
- Is 10 years and 3 months newer – Jan 07, 2025 vs Sep 08, 2014
- Is 10 years and 3 months newer
- Consumes up to 54% less energy – 65 vs 140 Watts
- Consumes up to 54% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Xeon E5-1620 v3 vs Core Ultra 7 265F: Comparison of performance and price
Xeon E5-1620 v3
Sep 8th, 2014
Average FPS
203 FPS
83%
Min 1% FPS
152 FPS
83%
Price, $
$189.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.93/FPS
100%
Core Ultra 7 265F
Jan 7th, 2025
Average FPS
245 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
184 FPS
100%
Price, $
$288
65%
Value, $/FPS
$1.17/FPS
79%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-1620 v3 vs Core Ultra 7 265F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5-1620 v3 vs Core Ultra 7 265F in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5-1620 v3
Sep 8th, 2014
Cores
4-core
20%
L3 Cache
10 MB
33%
Base Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.6 GHz
68%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
33%
Core Ultra 7 265F
Jan 7th, 2025
Cores
20-core
100%
L3 Cache
30 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
69%
Turbo Frequency
5.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5-1620 v3 Sep 8th, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 7 265F Jan 7th, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 8th, 2014 | Released | Jan 7th, 2025 |
| – | MSRP | $379.00 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA2011-3 | Socket | LGA1851 |
| 140 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2133 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
