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: +9.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $410 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $609 MSRP).
✅Delivers 202.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 47.0 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $609 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 175W, a 130W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Xeon w3-2525 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (28,339 vs 28,641).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 23 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w3-2525, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon w3-2525

2024

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅+40.6% larger total L3 cache (23 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 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 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.0 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($609 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌288.9% higher power demand at 175W vs 45W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 7 260 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen 7 260

2025

Xeon w3-2525

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $410 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $609 MSRP).
✅Delivers 202.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 47.0 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $609 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 175W, a 130W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 780M, while Xeon w3-2525 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅+40.6% larger total L3 cache (23 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 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 28,641).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 23 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon w3-2525, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 47.0 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($609 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌288.9% higher power demand at 175W vs 45W.
❌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 w3-2525?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon w3-2525 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 w3-2525 is the better fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 40.6% larger total L3 cache (23 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 $410 cheaper on MSRP at $199 MSRP versus $609 MSRP, and it gives you a 9.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon w3-2525 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.1% better PassMark. It is also 202.8% better value on MSRP (142.4 vs 47.0 PassMark/$), 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?

Ryzen 7 260 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024). 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 7 260 Benchmark Check

Xeon w3-2525 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon w3-2525
1080p
low	265 FPS	188 FPS
medium	240 FPS	155 FPS
high	202 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	174 FPS	108 FPS
1440p
low	234 FPS	152 FPS
medium	192 FPS	122 FPS
high	156 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	162 FPS	83 FPS
medium	135 FPS	72 FPS
high	104 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	91 FPS	45 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon w3-2525

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon w3-2525
1080p
low	486 FPS	587 FPS
medium	399 FPS	486 FPS
high	341 FPS	401 FPS
ultra	304 FPS	361 FPS
1440p
low	424 FPS	497 FPS
medium	367 FPS	429 FPS
high	314 FPS	364 FPS
ultra	267 FPS	312 FPS
4K
low	280 FPS	308 FPS
medium	253 FPS	268 FPS
high	237 FPS	248 FPS
ultra	204 FPS	218 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon w3-2525

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon w3-2525
1080p
low	708 FPS	716 FPS
medium	708 FPS	716 FPS
high	708 FPS	716 FPS
ultra	623 FPS	716 FPS
1440p
low	708 FPS	716 FPS
medium	644 FPS	716 FPS
high	544 FPS	716 FPS
ultra	467 FPS	651 FPS
4K
low	540 FPS	552 FPS
medium	474 FPS	454 FPS
high	421 FPS	412 FPS
ultra	357 FPS	332 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon w3-2525

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon w3-2525
1080p
low	708 FPS	716 FPS
medium	708 FPS	716 FPS
high	708 FPS	716 FPS
ultra	708 FPS	716 FPS
1440p
low	708 FPS	716 FPS
medium	708 FPS	716 FPS
high	657 FPS	716 FPS
ultra	572 FPS	634 FPS
4K
low	574 FPS	692 FPS
medium	511 FPS	604 FPS
high	455 FPS	533 FPS
ultra	393 FPS	437 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 260 Open Xeon w3-2525

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 260 and Xeon w3-2525

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 w3-2525

The Xeon w3-2525 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 August 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.5 GHz. L3 cache: 22.5 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4677. Thermal design power (TDP): 175 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4400. Passmark benchmark score: 28,641 points. Launch price was $609.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Ryzen 7 260 and Xeon w3-2525 share an identical 8-core/16-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 260 versus 4.5 GHz on the Xeon w3-2525 — a 12.5% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 260 (base: 3.8 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon w3-2525 uses Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024) (Intel 7 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 260 scores 28,339 against the Xeon w3-2525's 28,641 — a 1.1% lead for the Xeon w3-2525. L3 cache: 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 260 vs 22.5 MB on the Xeon w3-2525.

Feature	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon w3-2525
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5.1 GHz+13%	4.5 GHz
Base Clock	3.8 GHz+9%	3.5 GHz
L3 Cache	16 MB (total)	22.5 MB+41%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	4 nm-43%	Intel 7 nm
Architecture	Hawk Point (2024−2025)	Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
PassMark	28,339	28,641+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,000
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	15,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 260 uses the FP8 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon w3-2525 uses LGA4677 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-5600 memory speed. The Ryzen 7 260 supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 2 TB — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 260) vs 4 (Xeon w3-2525). PCIe lanes: 20 (Ryzen 7 260) vs 64 (Xeon w3-2525) — the Xeon w3-2525 offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon w3-2525
Socket	FP8	LGA4677
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5600	DDR5-4400
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	2 TB+3100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
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 (Xeon w3-2525). The Ryzen 7 260 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Xeon w3-2525 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen 7 260 targets Mobile, Xeon w3-2525 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon w3-2525 rivals Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX.

Feature	Ryzen 7 260	Xeon w3-2525
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Radeon 780M	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	Mobile	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 7 260 launched at $199 MSRP, while the Xeon w3-2525 debuted at $609. On MSRP ($199 vs $609), the Ryzen 7 260 is $410 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 260 delivers 142.4 pts/$ vs 47.0 pts/$ for the Xeon w3-2525 — making the Ryzen 7 260 the 100.7% better value option.