Atom C3558 vs Xeon L3360

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.

Atom C3558 vs Xeon L3360 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.

Atom C3558 vs Xeon L3360: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom C3558

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 16W instead of 65W, a 49W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon L3360 across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).

Xeon L3360

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.8% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,412 vs 2,431).
❌306.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 16W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom C3558 better than Xeon L3360?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon L3360 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Atom C3558 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, Atom C3558 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom C3558 still makes the most sense overall. Atom C3558 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark.

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

Atom C3558 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2009). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom C3558 vs Xeon L3360 Technical Specifications

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

Atom C3558

The Atom C3558 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 16 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 2133. Passmark benchmark score: 2,431 points. Launch price was $86.

Xeon L3360

The Xeon L3360 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Base frequency: 2.83 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 2,412 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom C3558 is built on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. In PassMark, the Atom C3558 scores 2,431 against the Xeon L3360's 2,412 — a 0.8% lead for the Atom C3558. L3 cache: 8 MB on the Atom C3558 vs 12 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon L3360.

Feature	Atom C3558	Xeon L3360
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	—
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz	—
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.83 GHz+29%
L3 Cache	8 MB	12 MB L2 Cache+50%
L2 Cache	8 MB	—
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	—
PassMark	2,431	2,412

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3558 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon L3360 uses LGA775 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Atom C3558	Xeon L3360
Socket	FCBGA1310	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133	—
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	12	—