FX-4150 vs Xeon X3470

FX-4150 vs Xeon X3470 Performance Spectrum

FX-4150

4 / 4

3,327

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon X3470

4 / 8

3,341

+0.4%

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 X3470 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 X3470: 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 $452 less on MSRP ($137 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).
✅Delivers 328.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($137 MSRP vs $589 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X3470 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,327 vs 3,341).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X3470, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.

Xeon X3470

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 24.3 PassMark/$ ($589 MSRP vs $137 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon X3470 better than FX-4150?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X3470 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, Xeon X3470 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.5% 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 X3470 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon X3470 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon X3470 comes in 329.9% more expensive on MSRP at $589 MSRP versus $137 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. FX-4150 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 328.1% better value on paper (24.3 vs 5.7 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

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 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-4150 vs Xeon X3470 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 X3470

The Xeon X3470 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 September 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Lynnfield (2009−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.93 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1156. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 3,341 points. Launch price was $589.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-4150 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon X3470's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the FX-4150 versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon X3470 — a 10.5% clock advantage for the FX-4150 (base: 3.8 GHz vs 2.93 GHz). The FX-4150 uses the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X3470 uses Lynnfield (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the FX-4150 scores 3,327 against the Xeon X3470's 3,341 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon X3470. Both processors carry 8 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	FX-4150	Xeon X3470
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4 GHz+11%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.8 GHz+30%	2.93 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4 MB+1500%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Zambezi (2011−2012)	Lynnfield (2009−2010)
PassMark	3,327	3,341

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-4150 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X3470 uses LGA1156 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-4150	Xeon X3470
Socket	AM3+	LGA1156
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-4150 was priced at $137, while the Xeon X3470 came in at $589. On launch pricing ($137 vs $589), FX-4150 was $452 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-4150 delivers 24.3 pts/$ vs 5.7 pts/$ for the Xeon X3470 — making the FX-4150 the 124.3% better value option.

Feature	FX-4150	Xeon X3470
MSRP	$137-77%	$589
Performance per Dollar	24.3+326%	5.7
Release Date	2012	2009

Search FX-4150 on Amazon

Search Xeon X3470 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.