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 i5-7600T vs Xeon E5-1620 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 i5-7600T vs Xeon E5-1620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i5-7600T

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $693 less on MSRP ($192 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).
✅Delivers 359.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.3 vs 6.6 PassMark/$ ($192 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 130W, a 95W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 630, while Xeon E5-1620 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-1620.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,827 vs 5,848).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 10 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1620, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-1620

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.1% 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, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.6 vs 30.3 PassMark/$ ($885 MSRP vs $192 MSRP).
❌271.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-7600T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-7600T.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-1620 better than Core i5-7600T?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-7600T is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-1620 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 11.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-1620 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 6 MB).

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

Xeon E5-1620 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon E5-1620 comes in 360.9% more expensive on MSRP at $885 MSRP versus $192 MSRP, and it still gives you a 11.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-7600T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2017 platform. Even with 359.3% better value on paper (30.3 vs 6.6 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

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

Core i5-7600T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i5-7600T vs Xeon E5-1620 Technical Specifications

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

Core i5-7600T

The Core i5-7600T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 5,827 points. Launch price was $224.

Xeon E5-1620

The Xeon E5-1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10240 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,848 points. Launch price was $313.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-7600T packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon E5-1620's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Core i5-7600T versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 — a 2.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1620 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i5-7600T uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-7600T scores 5,827 against the Xeon E5-1620's 5,848 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon E5-1620. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,243 vs 612, a 68% lead for the Core i5-7600T that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i5-7600T vs 10240 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620.

Feature	Core i5-7600T	Xeon E5-1620
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	3.8 GHz+3%
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	3.6 GHz+29%
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	10240 kB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,827	5,848
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	3,469
Geekbench 6 Single	1,243+103%	612
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	2,250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-7600T uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2400 on the Core i5-7600T versus DDR3-1600 on the Xeon E5-1620 — the Core i5-7600T supports 50% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-1620 supports up to 375 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 485.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-7600T) vs 4 (Xeon E5-1620). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-7600T) vs 40 (Xeon E5-1620) — the Xeon E5-1620 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: B250,H270,Z270 (Core i5-7600T) and Intel C600,Intel X79 (Xeon E5-1620).

Feature	Core i5-7600T	Xeon E5-1620
Socket	LGA1151	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400+50%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	375 GB+486%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-7600T) vs true (Xeon E5-1620). The Core i5-7600T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 630), while the Xeon E5-1620 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-7600T targets Low Power Desktop. Direct competitor: Core i5-7600T rivals Ryzen 3 1300X.

Feature	Core i5-7600T	Xeon E5-1620
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	true
Target Use	Low Power Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-7600T was priced at $192, while the Xeon E5-1620 came in at $885. On launch pricing ($192 vs $885), Core i5-7600T was $693 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-7600T delivers 30.3 pts/$ vs 6.6 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1620 — making the Core i5-7600T the 128.5% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-7600T	Xeon E5-1620
MSRP	$192-78%	$885
Performance per Dollar	30.3+359%	6.6
Release Date	2017	2012

Search Core i5-7600T on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-1620 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.