Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i9-12900K outperforms the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i9-12900K is 1963 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 17% cheaper than Core i9-12900K - $232.12 vs $279.00
Advantages of Core i9-12900K
- Performs up to 29% better in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 156 vs 121 FPS
- Up to 7% better value when playing Star Wars Jedi: Survivor than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - $1.79 vs $1.92 per FPS
- Consumes up to 11% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 125 vs 140 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 24 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7416 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
FPS
156
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.79/FPS
100%
Price, $
$279
83%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $279 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7415 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Core i9-12900K |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Nov 4th, 2021 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 24 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |