FX-6120 vs Xeon E3-1225

FX-6120 vs Xeon E3-1225 Performance Spectrum

FX-6120

6 / 6

3,853

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon E3-1225

4 / 4

3,903

+1.3%

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-6120 vs Xeon E3-1225 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-6120 vs Xeon E3-1225: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-6120

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Costs $36 less on MSRP ($188 MSRP vs $224 MSRP).
✅Delivers 17.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 20.5 vs 17.4 PassMark/$ ($188 MSRP vs $224 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,853 vs 3,903).

Xeon E3-1225

2011

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-6120 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 17.4 vs 20.5 PassMark/$ ($224 MSRP vs $188 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-6120 better than Xeon E3-1225?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3-1225 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-6120 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, Xeon E3-1225 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

FX-6120 is the better buy right now. FX-6120 comes in $36 cheaper on MSRP at $188 MSRP versus $224 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon E3-1225 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.3% better PassMark. It is also 17.6% better value on MSRP (20.5 vs 17.4 PassMark/$), 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-6120 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and 33.3% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 6 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-6120 vs Xeon E3-1225 Technical Specifications

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

FX-6120

The FX-6120 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 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 6 MB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,853 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon E3-1225

The Xeon E3-1225 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 April 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,903 points. Launch price was $150.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-6120 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, while the Xeon E3-1225 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-6120 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-6120 versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon E3-1225 — a 21.1% clock advantage for the FX-6120 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The FX-6120 uses the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E3-1225 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-6120 scores 3,853 against the Xeon E3-1225's 3,903 — a 1.3% lead for the Xeon E3-1225. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the FX-6120 vs 6 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1225.

Feature	FX-6120	Xeon E3-1225
Cores / Threads	6 / 6+50%	4 / 4
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+24%	3.4 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+16%	3.1 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)+33%	6 MB (total)
L2 Cache	6 MB+2300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Zambezi (2011−2012)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	3,853	3,903+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-6120 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E3-1225 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-6120	Xeon E3-1225
Socket	AM3+	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-6120 was priced at $188, while the Xeon E3-1225 came in at $224. On launch pricing ($188 vs $224), FX-6120 was $36 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-6120 delivers 20.5 pts/$ vs 17.4 pts/$ for the Xeon E3-1225 — making the FX-6120 the 16.2% better value option.

Feature	FX-6120	Xeon E3-1225
MSRP	$188-16%	$224
Performance per Dollar	20.5+18%	17.4
Release Date	2012	2011

Search FX-6120 on Amazon

Search Xeon E3-1225 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.