Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Core i7-970
Xeon E5-1620 v2
Core i7-970
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Xeon E5-1620 v2 is positioned at rank 594 and the Core i7-970 is on rank 1063, so the Xeon E5-1620 v2 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Xeon E5-1620 v2
Performance Per Dollar Core i7-970
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Xeon E5-1620 v2 | Core i7-970 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($50) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($289) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge-E (2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Gulftown (2010−2011) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Xeon E5-1620 v2 | Core i7-970 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+476%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($50) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($289) |
Performance Check
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Xeon E5-1620 v2 and Core i7-970
Xeon E5-1620 v2
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,523 points. Launch price was $315.
Core i7-970
The Core i7-970 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 July 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,547 points. Launch price was $662.
Processing Power
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Core i7-970 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Core i7-970 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 v2 versus 3.46 GHz on the Core i7-970 — a 12% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1620 v2 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i7-970 uses Gulftown (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-1620 v2 scores 6,523 against the Core i7-970's 6,547 — a 0.4% lead for the Core i7-970. L3 cache: 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-970.
| Feature | Xeon E5-1620 v2 | Core i7-970 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 4 / 8 | 6 / 12+50% |
| Boost Clock | 3.9 GHz+13% | 3.46 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.7 GHz+16% | 3.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 10 MB (total) | 12 MB (total)+20% |
| L2 Cache | 256 kB (per core) | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 22 nm-31% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge-E (2013) | Gulftown (2010−2011) |
| PassMark | 6,523 | 6,547 |
Memory & Platform
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses the LGA2011 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-970 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Xeon E5-1620 v2 | Core i7-970 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA2011 | LGA1366 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1066 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 24 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 3 |
| ECC Support | — | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 36 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Xeon E5-1620 v2) / VT-x (Core i7-970). Primary use case: Core i7-970 targets Desktop.
| Feature | Xeon E5-1620 v2 | Core i7-970 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Desktop |
Value Analysis
The Xeon E5-1620 v2 launched at $294 MSRP, while the Core i7-970 debuted at $1083. At current prices ($50 vs $289), the Xeon E5-1620 v2 is $239 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E5-1620 v2 delivers 130.5 pts/$ vs 22.7 pts/$ for the Core i7-970 — making the Xeon E5-1620 v2 the 140.8% better value option.
| Feature | Xeon E5-1620 v2 | Core i7-970 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $294-73% | $1083 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-83% | $289 |
| Performance per Dollar | 130.5+475% | 22.7 |
| Release Date | 2013 | 2010 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Xeon E5-1620 v2 and Core i7-970
