Key Differences
In short — Core i5-13400F 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 i5-13400F is 2389 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 74% cheaper than Core i5-13400F - $232.12 vs $899.99
- Up to 71% better value when playing Battlefield 2042 than Core i5-13400F - $1.49 vs $5.06 per FPS
Advantages of Core i5-13400F
- Performs up to 14% better in Battlefield 2042 than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 178 vs 156 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 16 vs 8 threads
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
156
88%
Value, $/FPS
$1.49/FPS
100%
Price, $
$232.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 269 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
178
100%
Value, $/FPS
$5.06/FPS
29%
Price, $
$899.99
25%
FPS Winner
Buy for $899.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 267 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i5-13400F |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 10 |
8 | Threads | 16 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
140 W | TDP | Not Available |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |