Core i7-4820K vs Xeon W3670

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.

Core i7-4820K vs Xeon W3670 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.

Core i7-4820K vs Xeon W3670: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i7-4820K

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (10 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W3670, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.6 vs 25.7 PassMark/$ ($332 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).

Xeon W3670

2010

Why buy it

✅+20% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 10 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
✅Costs $82 less on MSRP ($250 MSRP vs $332 MSRP).
✅Delivers 30.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.7 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $332 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-4820K across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (6,424 vs 6,515).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-4820K better than Xeon W3670?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W3670 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-4820K is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-4820K is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% 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, Core i7-4820K is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-4820K is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon W3670 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core i7-4820K comes in 32.8% more expensive on MSRP at $332 MSRP versus $250 MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon W3670 is also 30.9% better value on MSRP (25.7 vs 19.6 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Core i7-4820K makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-4820K vs Xeon W3670 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-4820K

The Core i7-4820K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,515 points. Launch price was $399.

Xeon W3670

The Xeon W3670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,424 points. Launch price was $295.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-4820K packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon W3670 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon W3670 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the Core i7-4820K versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon W3670 — a 12% clock advantage for the Core i7-4820K (base: 3.7 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Core i7-4820K uses the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon W3670 uses Gulftown (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-4820K scores 6,515 against the Xeon W3670's 6,424 — a 1.4% lead for the Core i7-4820K. L3 cache: 10 MB (total) on the Core i7-4820K vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon W3670.

Feature	Core i7-4820K	Xeon W3670
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz+13%	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+16%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	10 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+20%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge-E (2013)	Gulftown (2010−2011)
PassMark	6,515+1%	6,424

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-4820K uses the LGA2011 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W3670 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-4820K	Xeon W3670
Socket	LGA2011	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-4820K was priced at $332, while the Xeon W3670 came in at $250. On launch pricing ($332 vs $250), Xeon W3670 was $82 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-4820K delivers 19.6 pts/$ vs 25.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W3670 — making the Xeon W3670 the 26.8% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-4820K	Xeon W3670
MSRP	$332	$250-25%
Performance per Dollar	19.6	25.7+31%
Release Date	2013	2010

Search Core i7-4820K on Amazon

Search Xeon W3670 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.