A10-5700 vs Xeon E5-2603 v2

A10-5700 vs Xeon E5-2603 v2 Performance Spectrum

A10-5700

4 / 4

2,747

+0.4%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon E5-2603 v2

4 / 4

2,735

0.0%

About PassMark

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.

A10-5700 vs Xeon E5-2603 v2 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A10-5700 vs Xeon E5-2603 v2: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A10-5700

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 7660D, while Xeon E5-2603 v2 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (true), unlike Xeon E5-2603 v2.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon E5-2603 v2

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,735 vs 2,747).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A10-5700 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A10-5700.

Quick Answers

So, is A10-5700 better than Xeon E5-2603 v2?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2603 v2 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A10-5700 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A10-5700 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A10-5700 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A10-5700 still makes the most sense overall. A10-5700 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Xeon E5-2603 v2 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A10-5700 vs Xeon E5-2603 v2 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A10-5700

The A10-5700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,747 points. Launch price was $130.

Xeon E5-2603 v2

The Xeon E5-2603 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,735 points. Launch price was $240.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A10-5700 and Xeon E5-2603 v2 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the A10-5700 versus 1.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-2603 v2 — a 75.9% clock advantage for the A10-5700 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The A10-5700 uses the Trinity (2012−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5-2603 v2 uses Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the A10-5700 scores 2,747 against the Xeon E5-2603 v2's 2,735 — a 0.4% lead for the A10-5700. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A10-5700 vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-2603 v2.

Feature	A10-5700	Xeon E5-2603 v2
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	4 GHz+122%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+89%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	10 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Trinity (2012−2013)	Ivy Bridge-EP (2013)
PassMark	2,747	2,735

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-5700 uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5-2603 v2 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A10-5700	Xeon E5-2603 v2
Socket	FM2	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	64	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (A10-5700) / not specified (Xeon E5-2603 v2). The A10-5700 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 7660D), while the Xeon E5-2603 v2 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: A10-5700 rivals Core i3-3220.