A10-9700 vs Xeon E5620

A10-9700 vs Xeon E5620 Performance Spectrum

A10-9700

4 / 4

3,555

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon E5620

4 / 8

3,621

+1.9%

Pentium Dual Core T3400

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.

A10-9700 vs Xeon E5620 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.

A10-9700 vs Xeon E5620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A10-9700

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R7, while Xeon E5620 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5620.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5620 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,555 vs 3,621).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5620, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $169 MSRP, while Xeon E5620 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5620

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A10-9700 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A10-9700.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5620 better than A10-9700?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A10-9700 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5620 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.7% 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, Xeon E5620 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E5620 is still the better call for a fresh build. Xeon E5620 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $169 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. A10-9700 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is so cheap, but its absolute performance tier is too low to be the better recommendation now. At roughly 3,555 PassMark with 4 cores and 4 threads, it only really makes sense as a bare-minimum stopgap or a very constrained existing-platform upgrade.

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

A10-9700 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A10-9700 vs Xeon E5620 Technical Specifications

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

A10-9700

The A10-9700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 27 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 3,555 points. Launch price was $90.

Xeon E5620

The Xeon E5620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.66 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,621 points. Launch price was $35.

⚡

Processing Power

The A10-9700 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon E5620's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the A10-9700 versus 2.66 GHz on the Xeon E5620 — a 35.3% clock advantage for the A10-9700 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The A10-9700 uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Xeon E5620 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A10-9700 scores 3,555 against the Xeon E5620's 3,621 — a 1.8% lead for the Xeon E5620. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A10-9700 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon E5620.

Feature	A10-9700	Xeon E5620
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+43%	2.66 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+46%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2048 kB+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	3,555	3,621+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	642	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A10-9700 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5620 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A10-9700	Xeon E5620
Socket	AM4	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A10-9700) / not specified (Xeon E5620). The A10-9700 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R7), while the Xeon E5620 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A10-9700 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A10-9700 rivals Pentium G4560.