FX-6350 vs Xeon X5667

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

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,640 vs 4,697).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5667, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $132 MSRP, while Xeon X5667 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.

Xeon X5667

2010

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.
✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-6350 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.

FX-6350

2013

Xeon X5667

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.9% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.
✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,640 vs 4,697).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5667, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $132 MSRP, while Xeon X5667 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-6350 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Quick Answers

So, is FX-6350 better than Xeon X5667?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon X5667 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-6350 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon X5667 is the better fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

FX-6350 is the smarter buy today. FX-6350 is at an unclear MSRP at $132 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 4.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon X5667 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.2% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (35.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

FX-6350 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

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.

FX-6350 Benchmark Check

Xeon X5667 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
1080p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	98 FPS	85 FPS
1440p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	112 FPS
high	95 FPS	87 FPS
ultra	79 FPS	70 FPS
4K
low	65 FPS	62 FPS
medium	58 FPS	56 FPS
high	45 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	34 FPS

Open FX-6350 Open Xeon X5667

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
1080p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	95 FPS
4K
low	116 FPS	114 FPS
medium	116 FPS	100 FPS
high	116 FPS	78 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	55 FPS

Open FX-6350 Open Xeon X5667

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
1080p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	117 FPS
1440p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	117 FPS
4K
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	117 FPS

Open FX-6350 Open Xeon X5667

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
1080p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	117 FPS
1440p
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	117 FPS
4K
low	116 FPS	117 FPS
medium	116 FPS	117 FPS
high	116 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	116 FPS	117 FPS

Open FX-6350 Open Xeon X5667

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of FX-6350 and Xeon X5667

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 X5667

The Xeon X5667 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 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,697 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-6350 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, while the Xeon X5667 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the FX-6350 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-6350 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon X5667 — a 19.3% clock advantage for the FX-6350 (base: 3.9 GHz vs 3.06 GHz). The FX-6350 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5667 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-6350 scores 4,640 against the Xeon X5667's 4,697 — a 1.2% lead for the Xeon X5667.

Feature	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
Cores / Threads	6 / 6+50%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+21%	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+27%	3.06 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	4,697+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-6350 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X5667 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
Socket	AM3+	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (FX-6350) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5667). Primary use case: Xeon X5667 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5667 rivals Core i7-980X.