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 7 260

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.1% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,803 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Delivers 2399.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 205W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (28,339 vs 28,494).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 22 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245M, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3245M

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($5,002 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌355.6% higher power demand at 205W vs 45W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Ryzen 7 260 moves to FP8 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 7 260 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen 7 260

2025

Xeon W-3245M

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.1% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $4,803 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Delivers 2399.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 205W, a 160W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (28,339 vs 28,494).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 22 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245M, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($5,002 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌355.6% higher power demand at 205W vs 45W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Ryzen 7 260 moves to FP8 and DDR5.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 7 260 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 260 better than Xeon W-3245M?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3245M makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 7 260 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 W-3245M is the better fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 37.5% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 16 MB).

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

Ryzen 7 260 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 7 260 is $4,803 cheaper on MSRP at $199 MSRP versus $5,002 MSRP, and it gives you a 7.1% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon W-3245M is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.5% better PassMark. It is also 2399.9% better value on MSRP (142.4 vs 5.7 PassMark/$), 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 7 260 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2019) and a healthier platform with FP8 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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 7 260 Benchmark Check

Xeon W-3245M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	265 FPS	185 FPS
medium	240 FPS	150 FPS
high	202 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	174 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	234 FPS	148 FPS
medium	192 FPS	117 FPS
high	156 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	162 FPS	82 FPS
medium	135 FPS	70 FPS
high	104 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	91 FPS	44 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon W-3245M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	486 FPS	531 FPS
medium	399 FPS	447 FPS
high	341 FPS	372 FPS
ultra	304 FPS	335 FPS
1440p
low	424 FPS	461 FPS
medium	367 FPS	399 FPS
high	314 FPS	336 FPS
ultra	267 FPS	290 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	287 FPS
medium	253 FPS	248 FPS
high	237 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	199 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon W-3245M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	708 FPS	712 FPS
medium	708 FPS	712 FPS
high	708 FPS	712 FPS
ultra	623 FPS	712 FPS
1440p
low	708 FPS	712 FPS
medium	644 FPS	712 FPS
high	544 FPS	677 FPS
ultra	467 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	540 FPS	524 FPS
medium	474 FPS	428 FPS
high	421 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	357 FPS	314 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon W-3245M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon W-3245M
1080p
low	708 FPS	712 FPS
medium	708 FPS	712 FPS
high	708 FPS	712 FPS
ultra	708 FPS	712 FPS
1440p
low	708 FPS	712 FPS
medium	708 FPS	712 FPS
high	657 FPS	696 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	601 FPS
4K
low	574 FPS	646 FPS
medium	511 FPS	566 FPS
high	455 FPS	504 FPS
ultra	393 FPS	437 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon W-3245M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 260 and Xeon W-3245M

Ryzen 7 260

The Ryzen 7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 28,339 points. Launch price was $299.

Xeon W-3245M

The Xeon W-3245M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 28,494 points. Launch price was $5,002.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 7 260 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon W-3245M offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245M has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 260 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245M — a 10.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 260 (base: 3.8 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon W-3245M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 260 scores 28,339 against the Xeon W-3245M's 28,494 — a 0.5% lead for the Xeon W-3245M. L3 cache: 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 260 vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245M.

Feature	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon W-3245M
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	16 / 32+100%
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+11%	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.8 GHz+19%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	16 MB (total)	22 MB+38%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	16 MB+1500%
Process	4 nm-71%	14 nm
Architecture	Hawk Point (2024−2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	28,339	28,494
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	18,500
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,474
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	11,572

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 260 uses the FP8 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3245M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Ryzen 7 260 versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon W-3245M — the Ryzen 7 260 supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3245M supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 260) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245M). PCIe lanes: 20 (Ryzen 7 260) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245M) — the Xeon W-3245M offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon W-3245M
Socket	FP8	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600+25%	DDR4-2933
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	2048 GB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20	64+220%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Ryzen 7 260) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3245M). The Ryzen 7 260 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Xeon W-3245M requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen 7 260 targets Mobile, Xeon W-3245M targets Professional Workstation / Mac Pro. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3245M rivals Xeon Gold 6242.

Feature	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon W-3245M
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Radeon 780M	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Mobile	Professional Workstation / Mac Pro

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 7 260 launched at $199 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3245M debuted at $5002. On MSRP ($199 vs $5002), the Ryzen 7 260 is $4803 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 260 delivers 142.4 pts/$ vs 5.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245M — making the Ryzen 7 260 the 184.6% better value option.