A6-3620 vs Xeon E5345

A6-3620 vs Xeon E5345 Performance Spectrum

A6-3620

4 / 4

1,877

+0.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon E5345

4 / 4

1,868

0.0%

Core 2 Duo E7400

Celeron Dual-Core SU2300

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.

A6-3620 vs Xeon E5345 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.

A6-3620 vs Xeon E5345: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-3620

2011

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 6530D, while Xeon E5345 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5345.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon E5345

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,868 vs 1,877).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-3620 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A6-3620.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-3620 better than Xeon E5345?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5345 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A6-3620 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A6-3620 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% 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, A6-3620 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-3620 still makes the most sense overall. A6-3620 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

A6-3620 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 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-3620 vs Xeon E5345 Technical Specifications

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

A6-3620

The A6-3620 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 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 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: 1,877 points. Launch price was $70.

Xeon E5345

The Xeon E5345 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 November 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Clovertown (2006−2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.33 GHz, with boost up to 0.33 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 1,868 points. Launch price was $851.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-3620 and Xeon E5345 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the A6-3620 versus 0.33 GHz on the Xeon E5345 — a 153.4% clock advantage for the A6-3620 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.33 GHz). The A6-3620 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5345 uses Clovertown (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3620 scores 1,877 against the Xeon E5345's 1,868 — a 0.5% lead for the A6-3620. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3620 vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E5345.

Feature	A6-3620	Xeon E5345
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+658%	0.33 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.33 GHz+6%
L3 Cache	0 kB	8 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	4 MB (total)+300%
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Clovertown (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,877	1,868
Geekbench 6 Single	300	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3620 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5345 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-3620	Xeon E5345
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 (A6-3620) / not specified (Xeon E5345). The A6-3620 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6530D), while the Xeon E5345 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3620 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A6-3620 rivals Pentium G840.