FX-6130 vs Xeon E5-1603 v4

FX-6130 vs Xeon E5-1603 v4 Performance Spectrum

FX-6130

6 / 6

4,353

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E5-1603 v4

4 / 4

4,355

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-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.

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

✅Better for gaming: +5.7% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅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

✅+0% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-6130 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌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 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 0% better PassMark.

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.

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.

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.

Feature	FX-6130	Xeon 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