FX-4150 vs Xeon L5609

FX-4150 vs Xeon L5609 Performance Spectrum

FX-4150

4 / 4

3,327

+0.9%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon L5609

4 / 4

3,298

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.

FX-4150 vs Xeon L5609 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.

FX-4150 vs Xeon L5609: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-4150

2012

Why buy it

✅Costs $92 less on MSRP ($137 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
✅Delivers 68.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 14.4 PassMark/$ ($137 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌137.5% higher power demand at 95W vs 40W.

Xeon L5609

2010

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Draws 40W instead of 95W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,298 vs 3,327).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.4 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($229 MSRP vs $137 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-4150 better than Xeon L5609?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon L5609 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-4150 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, FX-4150 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.7% 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, FX-4150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

FX-4150 is the better buy right now. FX-4150 comes in $92 cheaper on MSRP at $137 MSRP versus $229 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 68.6% better value on MSRP (24.3 vs 14.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

FX-4150 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010) 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.

FX-4150 vs Xeon L5609 Technical Specifications

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

FX-4150

The FX-4150 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,327 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon L5609

The Xeon L5609 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.86 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 40 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,298 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the FX-4150 and Xeon L5609 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the FX-4150 versus 1.86 GHz on the Xeon L5609 — a 73% clock advantage for the FX-4150 (base: 3.8 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The FX-4150 uses the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon L5609 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-4150 scores 3,327 against the Xeon L5609's 3,298 — a 0.9% lead for the FX-4150. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the FX-4150 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon L5609.

Feature	FX-4150	Xeon L5609
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	4 GHz+115%	1.86 GHz
Base Clock	3.8 GHz+104%	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	4 MB+1500%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Zambezi (2011−2012)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	3,327	3,298

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-4150 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon L5609 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-4150	Xeon L5609
Socket	AM3+	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-4150 was priced at $137, while the Xeon L5609 came in at $229. On launch pricing ($137 vs $229), FX-4150 was $92 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-4150 delivers 24.3 pts/$ vs 14.4 pts/$ for the Xeon L5609 — making the FX-4150 the 51.1% better value option.

Feature	FX-4150	Xeon L5609
MSRP	$137-40%	$229
Performance per Dollar	24.3+69%	14.4
Release Date	2012	2010

Search FX-4150 on Amazon

Search Xeon L5609 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.