In Rust, the Xeon E5620 is slightly slower than the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Xeon E5620
- Consumes up to 56% less energy – 80 vs 180 Watts
- Consumes up to 56% less energy
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
- Up to 8% faster in Rust – 226 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 8% faster in Rust
- Is 7 years and 4 months newer – Aug 10, 2017 vs Mar 16, 2010
- Is 7 years and 4 months newer
Rust FPS Calculator
Xeon E5620 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Aug 10th, 2017
Average FPS
226 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
55 FPS
100%
Price, $
$850
100%
Value, $/FPS
$3.76/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Xeon E5620 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Xeon E5620 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X in core CPU performance specifications
Xeon E5620
Mar 16th, 2010
Cores
4-core
25%
L3 Cache
12 MB
38%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
71%
Turbo Frequency
2.666 GHz
67%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Ryzen Threadripper 1950X
Aug 10th, 2017
Cores
16-core
100%
L3 Cache
32 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Xeon E5620 Mar 16th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Aug 10th, 2017 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Mar 16th, 2010 | Release Date | Aug 10th, 2017 |
| – | MSRP | $999.00 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | SP3r2 |
80W | Power Consumption | 180W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
