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.

Ryzen 5 1400

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $248 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 146.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 45.7 vs 18.5 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2620 v3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,731 vs 7,734).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 15 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v3, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2620 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+87.5% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅66.7% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.5 vs 45.7 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.

Ryzen 5 1400

2017

Xeon E5-2620 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $248 less on MSRP ($169 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 146.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 45.7 vs 18.5 PassMark/$ ($169 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+87.5% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅66.7% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2620 v3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,731 vs 7,734).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 15 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v3, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 18.5 vs 45.7 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2620 v3 better than Ryzen 5 1400?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2620 v3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 5 1400 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-2620 v3 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 3.1% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2620 v3 is the better fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 87.5% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Xeon E5-2620 v3 is the smarter buy by a wide margin for a fresh build. Xeon E5-2620 v3 is 146.7% more expensive on MSRP at $417 MSRP versus $169 MSRP, and it gives you a 3.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen 5 1400 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is so cheap, but its absolute performance tier is too low to be the smarter recommendation now. At roughly 7,731 PassMark with 4 cores and 8 threads, it only makes sense as a bare-minimum stopgap or a very constrained existing-platform upgrade.

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

Ryzen 5 1400 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2014). 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.

Ryzen 5 1400 Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2620 v3 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 5 1400	Xeon E5-2620 v3
1080p
low	170 FPS	159 FPS
medium	148 FPS	136 FPS
high	119 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	141 FPS	133 FPS
medium	118 FPS	113 FPS
high	92 FPS	89 FPS
ultra	73 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	65 FPS	62 FPS
medium	58 FPS	56 FPS
high	45 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	35 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 1400 Open Xeon E5-2620 v3

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 5 1400	Xeon E5-2620 v3
1080p
low	168 FPS	193 FPS
medium	148 FPS	179 FPS
high	139 FPS	164 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	128 FPS
1440p
low	146 FPS	180 FPS
medium	129 FPS	158 FPS
high	120 FPS	145 FPS
ultra	94 FPS	116 FPS
4K
low	114 FPS	141 FPS
medium	103 FPS	125 FPS
high	80 FPS	106 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	76 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 1400 Open Xeon E5-2620 v3

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 5 1400	Xeon E5-2620 v3
1080p
low	193 FPS	193 FPS
medium	193 FPS	193 FPS
high	193 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	193 FPS
1440p
low	193 FPS	193 FPS
medium	193 FPS	193 FPS
high	193 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	193 FPS
4K
low	193 FPS	193 FPS
medium	193 FPS	193 FPS
high	193 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	181 FPS	193 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 1400 Open Xeon E5-2620 v3

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 5 1400	Xeon E5-2620 v3
1080p
low	193 FPS	193 FPS
medium	193 FPS	193 FPS
high	193 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	193 FPS
1440p
low	193 FPS	193 FPS
medium	193 FPS	193 FPS
high	193 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	193 FPS
4K
low	193 FPS	193 FPS
medium	193 FPS	193 FPS
high	193 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	193 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 1400 Open Xeon E5-2620 v3

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 5 1400 and Xeon E5-2620 v3

Ryzen 5 1400

The Ryzen 5 1400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 11 April 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 7,731 points. Launch price was $169.

Xeon E5-2620 v3

The Xeon E5-2620 v3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014−2015) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 7,734 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 5 1400 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon E5-2620 v3 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Ryzen 5 1400 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 v3 — a 6.1% clock advantage for the Ryzen 5 1400 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Ryzen 5 1400 uses the Zen (2017−2020) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 5 1400 scores 7,731 against the Xeon E5-2620 v3's 7,734 — a 0% lead for the Xeon E5-2620 v3. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 1400 vs 15 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-2620 v3.

Feature	Ryzen 5 1400	Xeon E5-2620 v3
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz+6%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+33%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	15 MB (total)+88%
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Zen (2017−2020)	Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
PassMark	7,731	7,734

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 5 1400 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 supports up to 768 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 5 1400) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2620 v3). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 5 1400) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2620 v3) — the Xeon E5-2620 v3 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 400 series,AMD 300 series (Ryzen 5 1400) and Intel X99,Intel C612 (Xeon E5-2620 v3).

Feature	Ryzen 5 1400	Xeon E5-2620 v3
Socket	AM4	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-1866
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	768 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	40+67%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Ryzen 5 1400) / VT-x, VT-d (Xeon E5-2620 v3). Primary use case: Xeon E5-2620 v3 targets Server.

Feature	Ryzen 5 1400	Xeon E5-2620 v3
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 5 1400 launched at $169 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 debuted at $417. On MSRP ($169 vs $417), the Ryzen 5 1400 is $248 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 5 1400 delivers 45.7 pts/$ vs 18.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 v3 — making the Ryzen 5 1400 the 84.6% better value option.