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 7 1700

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,692 less on MSRP ($140 MSRP vs $1,832 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1199.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 105.5 vs 8.1 PassMark/$ ($140 MSRP vs $1,832 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 105W, a 40W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2658A V3.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (14,772 vs 14,879).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2658A V3, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2658A V3

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅+87.5% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 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 Ryzen 7 1700 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.1 vs 105.5 PassMark/$ ($1,832 MSRP vs $140 MSRP).
❌61.5% higher power demand at 105W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 7 1700.

Ryzen 7 1700

2017

Xeon E5-2658A V3

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.3% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,692 less on MSRP ($140 MSRP vs $1,832 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1199.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 105.5 vs 8.1 PassMark/$ ($140 MSRP vs $1,832 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 105W, a 40W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2658A V3.

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅+87.5% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 12 cores / 24 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 (14,772 vs 14,879).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2658A V3, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 1700 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.1 vs 105.5 PassMark/$ ($1,832 MSRP vs $140 MSRP).
❌61.5% higher power demand at 105W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 7 1700.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 1700 better than Xeon E5-2658A V3?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2658A V3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 7 1700 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 E5-2658A V3 is the better fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 87.5% larger total L3 cache (30 MB vs 16 MB).

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

Ryzen 7 1700 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 7 1700 is $1,692 cheaper on MSRP at $140 MSRP versus $1,832 MSRP, and it gives you a 9.3% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon E5-2658A V3 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.7% better PassMark. It is also 1199.2% better value on MSRP (105.5 vs 8.1 PassMark/$), 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?

Ryzen 7 1700 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2015). 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 7 1700 Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2658A V3 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2658A V3
1080p
low	168 FPS	160 FPS
medium	144 FPS	138 FPS
high	117 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	92 FPS
1440p
low	142 FPS	134 FPS
medium	119 FPS	113 FPS
high	94 FPS	89 FPS
ultra	76 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	64 FPS	62 FPS
medium	58 FPS	56 FPS
high	46 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	35 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2658A V3

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2658A V3
1080p
low	277 FPS	193 FPS
medium	245 FPS	175 FPS
high	219 FPS	151 FPS
ultra	180 FPS	125 FPS
1440p
low	244 FPS	167 FPS
medium	221 FPS	153 FPS
high	197 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	162 FPS	109 FPS
4K
low	177 FPS	109 FPS
medium	165 FPS	101 FPS
high	151 FPS	89 FPS
ultra	120 FPS	71 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2658A V3

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2658A V3
1080p
low	369 FPS	372 FPS
medium	369 FPS	372 FPS
high	369 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	369 FPS	366 FPS
1440p
low	369 FPS	372 FPS
medium	369 FPS	372 FPS
high	367 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	311 FPS	330 FPS
4K
low	350 FPS	372 FPS
medium	284 FPS	316 FPS
high	258 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	232 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2658A V3

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2658A V3
1080p
low	369 FPS	372 FPS
medium	369 FPS	372 FPS
high	369 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	369 FPS	372 FPS
1440p
low	369 FPS	372 FPS
medium	369 FPS	372 FPS
high	369 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	369 FPS	372 FPS
4K
low	369 FPS	372 FPS
medium	369 FPS	372 FPS
high	361 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	311 FPS	324 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2658A V3

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon E5-2658A V3

Ryzen 7 1700

The Ryzen 7 1700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 March 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 16384 kB. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,772 points. Launch price was $329.

Xeon E5-2658A V3

The Xeon E5-2658A V3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014−2015) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011-3. Thermal design power (TDP): 105 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 14,879 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 7 1700 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-2658A V3 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Xeon E5-2658A V3 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Ryzen 7 1700 versus 2.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-2658A V3 — a 24.2% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 1700 (base: 3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Ryzen 7 1700 uses the Zen (2017−2020) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2658A V3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 1700 scores 14,772 against the Xeon E5-2658A V3's 14,879 — a 0.7% lead for the Xeon E5-2658A V3. L3 cache: 16384 kB on the Ryzen 7 1700 vs 30 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-2658A V3.

Feature	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2658A V3
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	12 / 24+50%
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+28%	2.9 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+36%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	16384 kB	30 MB (total)+88%
L2 Cache	4096 kB+1500%	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Zen (2017−2020)	Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
PassMark	14,772	14,879
Cinebench R23 Multi	8,065	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,000	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	5,000	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 1700 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2658A V3 uses LGA2011-3 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2658A V3 supports up to 768 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 142.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 1700) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2658A V3). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 7 1700) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2658A V3) — the Xeon E5-2658A V3 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2658A V3
Socket	AM4	LGA2011-3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	768 GB+500%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	40+67%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen 7 1700 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Ryzen 7 1700) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon E5-2658A V3). Primary use case: Ryzen 7 1700 targets Workstation, Xeon E5-2658A V3 targets Server. Direct competitor: Ryzen 7 1700 rivals Core i7-7700K.

Feature	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2658A V3
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Workstation	Server

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 7 1700 launched at $140 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2658A V3 debuted at $1832. On MSRP ($140 vs $1832), the Ryzen 7 1700 is $1692 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 1700 delivers 105.5 pts/$ vs 8.1 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2658A V3 — making the Ryzen 7 1700 the 171.4% better value option.