Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4610

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.

Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4610 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.

Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4610: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E5-1620 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $925 less on MSRP ($294 MSRP vs $1,219 MSRP).
✅Delivers 318.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 22.2 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($294 MSRP vs $1,219 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (10 MB vs 15 MB).

Xeon E5-4610

2012

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 10 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 v2 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (6,460 vs 6,523).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.3 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($1,219 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-1620 v2 better than Xeon E5-4610?

Yes. Xeon E5-1620 v2 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 8.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-1620 v2 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.2% 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 v2 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E5-1620 v2 is the better buy right now. Xeon E5-1620 v2 comes in $925 cheaper on MSRP at $294 MSRP versus $1,219 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 318.7% better value on MSRP (22.2 vs 5.3 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon E5-1620 v2 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4610 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Xeon E5-4610

The Xeon E5-4610 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,460 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-1620 v2 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-4610 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon E5-4610 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 v2 versus 2.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-4610 — a 29.4% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1620 v2 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-4610 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-1620 v2 scores 6,523 against the Xeon E5-4610's 6,460 — a 1% lead for the Xeon E5-1620 v2. L3 cache: 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs 15 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-4610.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v2	Xeon E5-4610
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz+34%	2.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+54%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	10 MB (total)	15 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge-E (2013)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	6,523	6,460

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA2011 socket with PCIe 3.0.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v2	Xeon E5-4610
Socket	LGA2011	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E5-1620 v2 was priced at $294, while the Xeon E5-4610 came in at $1219. On launch pricing ($294 vs $1219), Xeon E5-1620 v2 was $925 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E5-1620 v2 delivers 22.2 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-4610 — making the Xeon E5-1620 v2 the 122.9% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v2	Xeon E5-4610
MSRP	$294-76%	$1219
Performance per Dollar	22.2+319%	5.3
Release Date	2013	2012

Search Xeon E5-1620 v2 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-4610 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.