Key Differences
In short — Core i9-14900F outperforms Xeon E5-1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i9-14900F is 4325 days newer than Xeon E5-1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-14900F
- Performs up to 21% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Xeon E5-1620 - 232 vs 192 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-1620 - 32 vs 8 threads
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Xeon E5-1620
Server/Workstation • Mar 6th, 2012
Core i9-14900F
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2024
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-1620
Server/Workstation • Mar 6th, 2012
Single-Core
600
19.867549668874172%
Multi-Core
2238
12.249589490968802%
Intel Xeon E5-1620 | vs | Intel Core i9-14900F |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 6th, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 8th, 2024 |
| Xeon E5 | Collection | Core i9 |
| Sandy Bridge-EP | Codename | Raptor Lake |
| Intel Socket 2011 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Server | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 24 |
| 8 | Threads | 32 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.0 GHz |
| 3.8 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.8 GHz |
| 130 W | TDP | Not Available |
| 32 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 20.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
