FX-6350
Popular choices:
Xeon L5640
Popular choices:
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
FX-6350
2013Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $864 less on MSRP ($132 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 651.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 35.2 vs 4.7 PassMark/$ ($132 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (4,640 vs 4,659).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5640, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.
- ❌108.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 60W.
Xeon L5640
2010Why buy it
- ✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
- ✅Draws 60W instead of 125W, a 65W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-6350 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.7 vs 35.2 PassMark/$ ($996 MSRP vs $132 MSRP).
FX-6350
2013Xeon L5640
2010Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $864 less on MSRP ($132 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 651.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 35.2 vs 4.7 PassMark/$ ($132 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
- ✅Draws 60W instead of 125W, a 65W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (4,640 vs 4,659).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5640, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.
- ❌108.3% higher power demand at 125W vs 60W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-6350 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.7 vs 35.2 PassMark/$ ($996 MSRP vs $132 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is FX-6350 better than Xeon L5640?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.
Path of Exile 2
| Preset | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 105 FPS |
| ultra | 98 FPS | 87 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 111 FPS |
| high | 95 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 79 FPS | 70 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 65 FPS | 61 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 55 FPS |
| high | 45 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 36 FPS | 34 FPS |
Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 107 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 104 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 74 FPS |
League of Legends
| Preset | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
Valorant
| Preset | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 116 FPS | 116 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FX-6350 and Xeon L5640
FX-6350
FX-6350
The FX-6350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L2 cache: 6144 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,640 points. Launch price was $69.
Xeon L5640
Xeon L5640
The Xeon L5640 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 60 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,659 points. Launch price was $200.
Processing Power
The FX-6350 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, matching the Xeon L5640's 6 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-6350 versus 2.8 GHz on the Xeon L5640 — a 40% clock advantage for the FX-6350 (base: 3.9 GHz vs 2.26 GHz). The FX-6350 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon L5640 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-6350 scores 4,640 against the Xeon L5640's 4,659 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon L5640.
| Feature | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 6 | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 4.2 GHz+50% | 2.8 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.9 GHz+73% | 2.26 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 12 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 6144 kB+2300% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Vishera (2012−2015) | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) |
| PassMark | 4,640 | 4,659 |
Memory & Platform
The FX-6350 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon L5640 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3+ | LGA1366 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 5.0+150% |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3 1333 MHz |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 288 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 3 |
| ECC Support | — | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (FX-6350) / true (Xeon L5640). Primary use case: Xeon L5640 targets Server Low Power.
| Feature | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | true |
| Target Use | — | Server Low Power |
Value Analysis
The FX-6350 launched at $132 MSRP, while the Xeon L5640 debuted at $996. On MSRP ($132 vs $996), the FX-6350 is $864 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-6350 delivers 35.2 pts/$ vs 4.7 pts/$ for the Xeon L5640 — making the FX-6350 the 153% better value option.
| Feature | FX-6350 | Xeon L5640 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $132-87% | $996 |
| Performance per Dollar | 35.2+649% | 4.7 |
| 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 FX-6350 and Xeon L5640
