Xeon Bronze 3104 vs E5-1620
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-1620 outperforms Xeon Bronze 3104 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1478 | 1672 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.67 | 4.31 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon Bronze |
| Power efficiency | 2.69 | 3.11 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) | Skylake (server) (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 11 July 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $313 | $213 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon Bronze 3104 has 158% better value for money than Xeon E5-1620.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 6 |
| Base clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 1.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 17 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 6 MB |
| L3 cache | 10240 KB (shared) | 8.25 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 294 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 64 °C | 78 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 85 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2133 |
| Maximum memory size | 375 GB | 768 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 102.403 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 48 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.83 | 2.90 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 11 July 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 6 |
| Threads | 8 | 6 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 85 Watt |
Xeon E5-1620 has a 32.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 33.3% more threads.
Xeon Bronze 3104, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 50% more physical cores, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 52.9% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-1620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Bronze 3104 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1620 and Xeon Bronze 3104, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
