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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +67.9% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $32 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 68.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon E5-2620 v4 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 14,397).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +67.9% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $32 less on MSRP ($385 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 68.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon E5-2620 v4 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 14,397).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-9700K better than Xeon E5-2620 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2620 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-9700K is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-9700K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 67.9% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-9700K is the better fit. You are getting 55.6% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-9700K is the smarter buy today. Core i7-9700K is $32 cheaper on MSRP at $385 MSRP versus $417 MSRP, and it gives you a 67.9% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 68.5% better value on MSRP (37.4 vs 22.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i7-9700K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2620 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	308 FPS	158 FPS
medium	278 FPS	137 FPS
high	231 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	133 FPS
medium	221 FPS	112 FPS
high	178 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	62 FPS
medium	140 FPS	56 FPS
high	108 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	360 FPS	188 FPS
medium	321 FPS	170 FPS
high	291 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	121 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	162 FPS
medium	282 FPS	149 FPS
high	258 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	105 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	106 FPS
medium	221 FPS	97 FPS
high	208 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	68 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	360 FPS	231 FPS
medium	360 FPS	231 FPS
high	360 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	231 FPS
medium	360 FPS	231 FPS
high	360 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	231 FPS
medium	360 FPS	231 FPS
high	360 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	231 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	360 FPS	231 FPS
medium	360 FPS	231 FPS
high	360 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	231 FPS
medium	360 FPS	231 FPS
high	360 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	231 FPS
medium	360 FPS	231 FPS
high	360 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	231 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Xeon E5-2620 v4

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

The Xeon E5-2620 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 9,255 points. Launch price was $417.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Xeon E5-2620 v4's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — a 48.1% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Xeon E5-2620 v4's 9,255 — a 43.5% lead for the Core i7-9700K. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2620 v4.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+63%	3 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+71%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	20 MB+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	2 MB+700%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	14,397+56%	9,255

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2620 v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-9700K) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2620 v4). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-9700K) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2620 v4) — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel 300 series (Core i7-9700K) and Intel X99,Intel C612 (Xeon E5-2620 v4).

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Socket	LGA1151	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1536 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) / not specified (Xeon E5-2620 v4). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 debuted at $417. On MSRP ($385 vs $417), the Core i7-9700K is $32 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 22.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — making the Core i7-9700K the 51% better value option.