Chipversus Index
Jump to Section

FX-6130 vs Xeon E5-1603 v4

CPUCPUGPUGPU
AMD

FX-6130

6 Cores6 Thrd95 WWMax: 3.9 GHz2012
Buy on Amazon
VS
Intel

Xeon E5-1603 v4

Buy on Amazon

FX-6130 vs Xeon E5-1603 v4 Performance Spectrum

FX-6130
6 / 6
4,353
0.0%
brand logoAthlon II X4 645
brand logoAthlon II X4 620e
brand logoAthlon X4 840
brand logoAthlon 300U
brand logoRyzen 7 7840S
brand logoRyzen 7 8840HX
brand logoRyzen 9 9955HX3D
brand logoRyzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX
Xeon E5-1603 v4
4 / 4
4,355
0.0%
brand logoAtom C3558
brand logoCeleron N2910
brand logoXeon W3565
brand logoCore i5-2400
brand logoCore i5-13600H
brand logoCore i9-13900HX
brand logoXeon w7-3465X
brand logoXeon w9-3575X

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-6130 vs Xeon E5-1603 v4 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.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra96 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high106 FPS
ultra82 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
Among Us

Among Us

1080P
FX-6130
low60 FPS
medium60 FPS
high60 FPS
ultra60 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low60 FPS
medium60 FPS
high60 FPS
ultra53 FPS
Apex Legends

Apex Legends

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
ARC Raiders

ARC Raiders

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high107 FPS
ultra84 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high98 FPS
ultra76 FPS
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

1080P
FX-6130
low45 FPS
medium32 FPS
high11 FPS
ultra6 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra98 FPS
Call of Duty: Warzone

Call of Duty: Warzone

1080P
FX-6130
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
1080P
Xeon E5-1603 v4
low109 FPS
medium109 FPS
high109 FPS
ultra109 FPS
Check FPS with Custom Builds

FX-6130 vs Xeon E5-1603 v4: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-6130

2012

Why buy it

  • ✅Draws 95W instead of 140W, a 45W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Lower PassMark (4,353 vs 4,355).

Xeon E5-1603 v4

2016

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • ❌47.4% higher power demand at 140W vs 95W.

    Quick Answers

    So, is Xeon E5-1603 v4 better than FX-6130?
    Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1603 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-6130 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 E5-1603 v4 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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 E5-1603 v4 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark.
    Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
    Xeon E5-1603 v4 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon E5-1603 v4 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Xeon E5-1603 v4 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2012). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

    FX-6130 vs Xeon E5-1603 v4 Technical Specifications

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

    AMD

    FX-6130

    The FX-6130 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 3.9 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: 4,353 points. Launch price was $69.

    Intel

    Xeon E5-1603 v4

    The Xeon E5-1603 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Passmark benchmark score: 4,355 points. Launch price was $800.

    ⚡

    Processing Power

    The FX-6130 is built on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. In PassMark, the FX-6130 scores 4,353 against the Xeon E5-1603 v4's 4,355 — a 0% lead for the Xeon E5-1603 v4.

    FeatureFX-6130Xeon E5-1603 v4
    Cores / Threads
    6 / 6
    —
    Boost Clock
    3.9 GHz
    —
    Base Clock
    3.6 GHz
    —
    L3 Cache
    8 MB (total)
    —
    L2 Cache
    6 MB
    —
    Process
    32 nm
    —
    Architecture
    Zambezi (2011−2012)
    —
    PassMark
    4,353
    4,355