Core i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i3-9320

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $1,012 less on MSRP ($154 MSRP vs $1,166 MSRP).
✅Delivers 659.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 47.8 vs 6.3 PassMark/$ ($154 MSRP vs $1,166 MSRP).
✅Draws 62W instead of 140W, a 78W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 v4 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 10 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1620 v4, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.

Xeon E5-1620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (7,338 vs 7,358).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.3 vs 47.8 PassMark/$ ($1,166 MSRP vs $154 MSRP).
❌125.8% higher power demand at 140W vs 62W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-9320 better than Xeon E5-1620 v4?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1620 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-9320 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-9320 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i3-9320 is the better buy right now. Core i3-9320 comes in $1,012 cheaper on MSRP at $154 MSRP versus $1,166 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-1620 v4 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 9.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 659.2% better value on MSRP (47.8 vs 6.3 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i3-9320 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1620 v4 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i3-9320

The Core i3-9320 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 62 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 7,358 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E5-1620 v4

The Xeon E5-1620 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-EP (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 7,338 points. Launch price was $294.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-9320 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon E5-1620 v4's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i3-9320 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 v4 — a 14.6% clock advantage for the Core i3-9320 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Core i3-9320 uses the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 uses Broadwell-EP (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-9320 scores 7,358 against the Xeon E5-1620 v4's 7,338 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i3-9320. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i3-9320 vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v4.

Feature	Core i3-9320	Xeon E5-1620 v4
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+16%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+6%	3.5 GHz
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	10 MB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)	Broadwell-EP (2016)
PassMark	7,358	7,338

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-9320 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-9320	Xeon E5-1620 v4
Socket	LGA1151	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i3-9320 was priced at $154, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 came in at $1166. On launch pricing ($154 vs $1166), Core i3-9320 was $1012 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i3-9320 delivers 47.8 pts/$ vs 6.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1620 v4 — making the Core i3-9320 the 153.4% better value option.

Feature	Core i3-9320	Xeon E5-1620 v4
MSRP	$154-87%	$1166
Performance per Dollar	47.8+659%	6.3
Release Date	2019	2016

Search Core i3-9320 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-1620 v4 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.