A6-3600 vs Xeon 5160

A6-3600 vs Xeon 5160 Performance Spectrum

A6-3600

4 / 4

1,718

+0.2%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 5160

2 / 2

1,715

0.0%

Celeron T3100

Pentium Dual Core T4200

Pentium Dual Core T4500

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.

A6-3600 vs Xeon 5160 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.

A6-3600 vs Xeon 5160: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3600

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅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 6530D, while Xeon 5160 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon 5160.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $95 MSRP, while Xeon 5160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon 5160

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,715 vs 1,718).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3600 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-3600.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-3600 better than Xeon 5160?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5160 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A6-3600 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A6-3600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-3600 is the better buy right now. A6-3600 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $95 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon 5160 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (18.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

A6-3600 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-3600 vs Xeon 5160 Technical Specifications

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

A6-3600

The A6-3600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,718 points. Launch price was $70.

Xeon 5160

The Xeon 5160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Junho 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Woodcrest (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,715 points. Launch price was $22.

⚡

Processing Power

The A6-3600 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon 5160 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3600 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the A6-3600 versus 3 GHz on the Xeon 5160 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Xeon 5160 (base: 2.1 GHz vs 3 GHz). The A6-3600 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon 5160 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3600 scores 1,718 against the Xeon 5160's 1,715 — a 0.2% lead for the A6-3600. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	A6-3600	Xeon 5160
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	3 GHz+25%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	3 GHz+43%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	4 MB+300%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,718	1,715
Geekbench 6 Single	253	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3600 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 5160 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-3600	Xeon 5160
Socket	FM1	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A6-3600) / not specified (Xeon 5160). The A6-3600 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6530D), while the Xeon 5160 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3600 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-3600 rivals Pentium G630.