Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i5-12400 outperforms the more expensive Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i5-12400 is 2024 days newer than the more expensive Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Core i5-12400
- Performs up to 6% better in Battlefield 1 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 253 vs 238 FPS
- Up to 43% cheaper than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $133.45 vs $232.12
- Up to 46% better value when playing Battlefield 1 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $0.53 vs $0.98 per 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 - 12 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 137 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
FPS
253
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.53/FPS
100%
Price, $
$133.45
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $133.45 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 136 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i5-12400 |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 6 |
8 | Threads | 12 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 |
No | Overclockable | No |