Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X 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 Ryzen 9 7950X is 2290 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 53% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7950X - $232.12 vs $495.36
- Up to 30% better value when playing New World than Ryzen 9 7950X - $2.15 vs $3.08 per FPS
- Consumes up to 18% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 7950X - 140 vs 170 Watts
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7950X
- Performs up to 49% better in New World than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 161 vs 108 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 32 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 doesn't have integrated graphics
New World
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
108
67%
Value, $/FPS
$2.15/FPS
100%
Price, $
$232.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7265 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
161
100%
Value, $/FPS
$3.08/FPS
70%
Price, $
$495.36
46%
FPS Winner
Buy for $495.36 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 7264 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Ryzen 9 7950X |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Broadwell-E/EP | Codename | Raphael |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket AM5 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 16 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 170 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 45.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |