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

✅Costs $1,605 less on MSRP ($140 MSRP vs $1,745 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1138.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 105.5 vs 8.5 PassMark/$ ($140 MSRP vs $1,745 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2680 v3.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2680 v3 across 12 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,772 vs 14,864).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2680 v3, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2680 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.8% higher average FPS across 12 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+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 per dollar, at 8.5 vs 105.5 PassMark/$ ($1,745 MSRP vs $140 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 7 1700.

Ryzen 7 1700

2017

Xeon E5-2680 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,605 less on MSRP ($140 MSRP vs $1,745 MSRP).
✅Delivers 1138.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 105.5 vs 8.5 PassMark/$ ($140 MSRP vs $1,745 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 120W, a 55W reduction.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5-2680 v3.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.8% higher average FPS across 12 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+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 Xeon E5-2680 v3 across 12 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,772 vs 14,864).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 30 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2680 v3, which brings 12 cores / 24 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.5 vs 105.5 PassMark/$ ($1,745 MSRP vs $140 MSRP).
❌84.6% higher power demand at 120W vs 65W.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 7 1700.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2680 v3 better than Ryzen 7 1700?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2680 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-2680 v3 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 8.8% more average FPS across 12 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2680 v3 is the better fit. You are getting 0.6% 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?

Xeon E5-2680 v3 is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen 7 1700 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon E5-2680 v3 is 1146.4% more expensive on MSRP at $1,745 MSRP versus $140 MSRP, and it gives you a 8.8% average FPS lead across 12 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen 7 1700 is also 1138.7% better value on MSRP (105.5 vs 8.5 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds 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 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 7 1700 Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2680 v3 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2680 v3
1080p
low	168 FPS	162 FPS
medium	144 FPS	142 FPS
high	117 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	142 FPS	136 FPS
medium	119 FPS	116 FPS
high	94 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	76 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	64 FPS	63 FPS
medium	58 FPS	57 FPS
high	46 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	35 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2680 v3

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2680 v3
1080p
low	277 FPS	330 FPS
medium	245 FPS	299 FPS
high	219 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	180 FPS	212 FPS
1440p
low	244 FPS	285 FPS
medium	221 FPS	261 FPS
high	197 FPS	227 FPS
ultra	162 FPS	185 FPS
4K
low	177 FPS	185 FPS
medium	165 FPS	169 FPS
high	151 FPS	146 FPS
ultra	120 FPS	116 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2680 v3

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2680 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	367 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	311 FPS	372 FPS
4K
low	350 FPS	372 FPS
medium	284 FPS	357 FPS
high	258 FPS	323 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	268 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2680 v3

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2680 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	332 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 1700 Open Xeon E5-2680 v3

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 1700 and Xeon E5-2680 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 E5-2680 v3

The Xeon E5-2680 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 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 30 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 14,864 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 7 1700 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-2680 v3 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the Xeon E5-2680 v3 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Ryzen 7 1700 versus 3.3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2680 v3 — a 11.4% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 1700 (base: 3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Ryzen 7 1700 uses the Zen (2017−2020) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2680 v3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 1700 scores 14,772 against the Xeon E5-2680 v3's 14,864 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E5-2680 v3. L3 cache: 16384 kB on the Ryzen 7 1700 vs 30 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-2680 v3.

Feature	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2680 v3
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	12 / 24+50%
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+12%	3.3 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+20%	2.5 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	14,864
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 E5-2680 v3 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2666 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2680 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 E5-2680 v3). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 7 1700) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2680 v3) — the Xeon E5-2680 v3 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2680 v3
Socket	AM4	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
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 E5-2680 v3). Primary use case: Ryzen 7 1700 targets Workstation, Xeon E5-2680 v3 targets Server. Direct competitor: Ryzen 7 1700 rivals Core i7-7700K.

Feature	Ryzen 7 1700	Xeon E5-2680 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 E5-2680 v3 debuted at $1745. On MSRP ($140 vs $1745), the Ryzen 7 1700 is $1605 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 1700 delivers 105.5 pts/$ vs 8.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2680 v3 — making the Ryzen 7 1700 the 170.1% better value option.