Atom Z3740 vs Xeon W3565

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 Z3740 vs Xeon W3565 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 Z3740 vs Xeon W3565: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z3740

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 130W, a 128W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Xeon W3565 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W3565 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,380 vs 3,391).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W3565, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads and 36 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W3565

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads, plus 36 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (36 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $294 MSRP, while Atom Z3740 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌6400% higher power demand at 130W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom Z3740 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W3565 better than Atom Z3740?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W3565 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Atom Z3740 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 W3565 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.8% 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, Xeon W3565 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon W3565 is the better buy right now. Xeon W3565 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $294 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (11.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom Z3740 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom Z3740 vs Xeon W3565 Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z3740

The Atom Z3740 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.33 GHz, with boost up to 1.86 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: UTFCBGA1380. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,380 points. Launch price was $32.

Xeon W3565

The Xeon W3565 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Bloomfield (2008−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,391 points. Launch price was $70.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z3740 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon W3565's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.86 GHz on the Atom Z3740 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon W3565 — a 60.2% clock advantage for the Xeon W3565 (base: 1.33 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Atom Z3740 uses the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon W3565 uses Bloomfield (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z3740 scores 3,380 against the Xeon W3565's 3,391 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon W3565. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom Z3740 vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon W3565.

Feature	Atom Z3740	Xeon W3565
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	1.86 GHz	3.46 GHz+86%
Base Clock	1.33 GHz	3.2 GHz+141%
L3 Cache	0 kB	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-T (2013−2014)	Bloomfield (2008−2010)
PassMark	3,380	3,391
Geekbench 6 Single	—	513
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	1,726

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z3740 uses the UTFCBGA1380 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon W3565 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to LPDDR3-1066 memory speed. The Xeon W3565 supports up to 24 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Atom Z3740) vs 3 (Xeon W3565). PCIe lanes: 0 (Atom Z3740) vs 36 (Xeon W3565) — the Xeon W3565 offers 36 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom Z3740) and X58 (Xeon W3565).

Feature	Atom Z3740	Xeon W3565
Socket	UTFCBGA1380	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 5.0+150%
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1066	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	24 GB+500%
RAM Channels	2	3+50%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	36

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom Z3740) / Yes (Xeon W3565). The Atom Z3740 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Xeon W3565 requires a dedicated GPU.