Xeon E5-1620 v4 vs Xeon E5-2650

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 v4 vs Xeon E5-2650 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 v4 vs Xeon E5-2650: 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 v4

2016

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (7,338 vs 7,349).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (10 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $1,166 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2650 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌47.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 95W.

Xeon E5-2650

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 10 MB).
✅Draws 95W instead of 140W, a 45W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-1620 v4 better than Xeon E5-2650?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E5-1620 v4 is ahead with a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2650 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark. Xeon E5-2650 also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 10 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2650 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 10 MB).

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

Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the better buy right now. Xeon E5-1620 v4 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $1,166 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon E5-2650 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.1% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 v4 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Xeon E5-1620 v4 vs Xeon E5-2650 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Xeon E5-2650

The Xeon E5-2650 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 20480 kB (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: 7,349 points. Launch price was $91.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-1620 v4 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2650 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E5-2650 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 v4 versus 2.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-2650 — a 30.3% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1620 v4 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Xeon E5-1620 v4 uses the Broadwell-EP (2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2650 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-1620 v4 scores 7,338 against the Xeon E5-2650's 7,349 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon E5-2650. L3 cache: 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v4 vs 20480 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2650.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v4	Xeon E5-2650
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	8 / 16+100%
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+36%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+75%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	10 MB (total)	20480 kB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Broadwell-EP (2016)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	7,338	7,349

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA2011 socket with PCIe 3.0.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v4	Xeon E5-2650
Socket	LGA2011	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	—	384 GB
RAM Channels	—	4
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	40