A10-6700 vs Xeon W3540

A10-6700 vs Xeon W3540 Performance Spectrum

A10-6700

4 / 4

3,109

+1.1%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon W3540

4 / 8

3,075

0.0%

Core 2 Duo T7200

Pentium G620T

Pentium P6200

Celeron Dual-Core T1400

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.

A10-6700 vs Xeon W3540 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.

A10-6700 vs Xeon W3540: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A10-6700

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 8670D, while Xeon W3540 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W3540.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W3540, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.

Xeon W3540

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,075 vs 3,109).
❌Launch MSRP is still $284 MSRP, while A10-6700 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A10-6700 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A10-6700.

Quick Answers

So, is A10-6700 better than Xeon W3540?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W3540 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A10-6700 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A10-6700 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, A10-6700 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A10-6700 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon W3540 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. A10-6700 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $284 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon W3540 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (10.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

A10-6700 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A10-6700 vs Xeon W3540 Technical Specifications

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

A10-6700

The A10-6700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Richland (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM2. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 3,109 points. Launch price was $130.

Xeon W3540

The Xeon W3540 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 March 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Bloomfield (2008−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.93 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,075 points. Launch price was $699.

⚡

Processing Power

The A10-6700 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon W3540's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the A10-6700 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon W3540 — a 29.3% clock advantage for the A10-6700 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 2.93 GHz). The A10-6700 uses the Richland (2013−2014) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon W3540 uses Bloomfield (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A10-6700 scores 3,109 against the Xeon W3540's 3,075 — a 1.1% lead for the A10-6700. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A10-6700 vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon W3540.

Feature	A10-6700	Xeon W3540
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+34%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+26%	2.93 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4096 kB+1500%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Richland (2013−2014)	Bloomfield (2008−2010)
PassMark	3,109+1%	3,075
Geekbench 6 Single	438	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-6700 uses the FM2 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W3540 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A10-6700	Xeon W3540
Socket	FM2	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A10-6700) / not specified (Xeon W3540). The A10-6700 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 8670D), while the Xeon W3540 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-6700 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A10-6700 rivals Core i3-3240.