Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 7950X3D 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 7950X3D is 2389 days newer than the cheaper Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-1620 v4
- Up to 69% cheaper than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - $232.12 vs $744.99
- Up to 65% better value when playing Monster Hunter: World than Ryzen 9 7950X3D - $0.91 vs $2.62 per FPS
Advantages of Ryzen 9 7950X3D
- Performs up to 12% better in Monster Hunter: World than Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 284 vs 254 FPS
- Consumes up to 14% less energy than Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 - 120 vs 140 Watts
- 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
Monster Hunter: World
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
FPS
254
89%
Value, $/FPS
$0.91/FPS
100%
Price, $
$232.12
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $232.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 80 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
284
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.62/FPS
35%
Price, $
$744.99
31%
FPS Winner
Buy for $744.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 79 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Jun 20th, 2016
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620 v4 | vs | Ryzen 9 7950X3D |
---|---|---|
Jun 20th, 2016 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2023 |
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 | 4.2 GHz |
3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.7 GHz |
140 W | TDP | 120 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 5 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 42.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics |
No | Overclockable | Yes |