Xeon E5-2620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4617

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 E5-2620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4617 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 E5-2620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4617: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E5-2620 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +23.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 80W instead of 130W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,251 vs 6,298).

Xeon E5-4617

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2620 v2 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Launch MSRP is still $90 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2620 v2 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌62.5% higher power demand at 130W vs 80W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2620 v2 better than Xeon E5-4617?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E5-2620 v2 is ahead with a 23.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-4617 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-4617 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

Xeon E5-2620 v2 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5-4617 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E5-2620 v2 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $90 MSRP, and it still gives you a 23.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon E5-4617 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.8% better PassMark. Xeon E5-4617 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (70.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Xeon E5-2620 v2 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Xeon E5-2620 v2 vs Xeon E5-4617 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E5-2620 v2

The Xeon E5-2620 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,251 points. Launch price was $417.

Xeon E5-4617

The Xeon E5-4617 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 May 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 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: 6,298 points. Launch price was $90.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-2620 v2 packs 6 cores / 12 threads, matching the Xeon E5-4617's 6 cores. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 v2 versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon E5-4617 — a 26.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-4617 (base: 2.1 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Xeon E5-2620 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-4617 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-2620 v2 scores 6,251 against the Xeon E5-4617's 6,298 — a 0.7% lead for the Xeon E5-4617. L3 cache: 15 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-2620 v2 vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-4617.

Feature	Xeon E5-2620 v2	Xeon E5-4617
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 6
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz	3.4 GHz+31%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	2.9 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	15 MB (total)	15360 kB (total)
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge-EP (2013)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	6,251	6,298