A6-7310 vs Xeon E5607

A6-7310 vs Xeon E5607 Performance Spectrum

A6-7310

4 / 4

2,689

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon E5607

4 / 4

2,686

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.

A6-7310 vs Xeon E5607 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.

A6-7310 vs Xeon E5607: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A6-7310

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 80W, a 78W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon R4 Graphics, while Xeon E5607 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon E5607

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than A6-7310 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,686 vs 2,689).
❌Launch MSRP is still $135 MSRP, while A6-7310 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3900% higher power demand at 80W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A6-7310 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-7310 better than Xeon E5607?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5607 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A6-7310 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A6-7310 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.2% 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, A6-7310 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-7310 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5607 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. A6-7310 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $135 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E5607 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (19.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

A6-7310 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2011) 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.

A6-7310 vs Xeon E5607 Technical Specifications

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

A6-7310

The A6-7310 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Carrizo-L (2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP4. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3L-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 2,689 points. Launch price was $70.

Xeon E5607

The Xeon E5607 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 0.27 GHz. L3 cache: 8 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: 2,686 points. Launch price was $135.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A6-7310 and Xeon E5607 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the A6-7310 versus 0.27 GHz on the Xeon E5607 — a 159.6% clock advantage for the A6-7310 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.26 GHz). The A6-7310 uses the Carrizo-L (2015) architecture (28 nm), while the Xeon E5607 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-7310 scores 2,689 against the Xeon E5607's 2,686 — a 0.1% lead for the A6-7310.

Feature	A6-7310	Xeon E5607
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz+789%	0.27 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.26 GHz+13%
L3 Cache	—	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2048 kB+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Carrizo-L (2015)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,689	2,686

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-7310 uses the FP4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5607 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	A6-7310	Xeon E5607
Socket	FP4	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	16	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (A6-7310) / not specified (Xeon E5607). The A6-7310 includes integrated graphics (Radeon R4 Graphics), while the Xeon E5607 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: A6-7310 rivals Pentium N3700.