FX-6130 vs Xeon L5639

FX-6130 vs Xeon L5639 Performance Spectrum

FX-6130

6 / 6

4,353

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon L5639

6 / 12

4,419

+1.5%

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 L5639 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 L5639: 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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,353 vs 4,419).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5639, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.
❌58.3% higher power demand at 95W vs 60W.

Xeon L5639

2011

Why buy it

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
✅Draws 60W instead of 95W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon L5639 better than FX-6130?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon L5639 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 L5639 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Xeon L5639 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon L5639 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% better PassMark.

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

FX-6130 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-6130 vs Xeon L5639 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 L5639

The Xeon L5639 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.133 GHz, with boost up to 2.67 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 60 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,419 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-6130 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, matching the Xeon L5639's 6 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the FX-6130 versus 2.67 GHz on the Xeon L5639 — a 37.4% clock advantage for the FX-6130 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.133 GHz). The FX-6130 uses the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon L5639 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-6130 scores 4,353 against the Xeon L5639's 4,419 — a 1.5% lead for the Xeon L5639. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the FX-6130 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon L5639.

Feature	FX-6130	Xeon L5639
Cores / Threads	6 / 6	6 / 12
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz+46%	2.67 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+69%	2.133 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	6 MB+2300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Zambezi (2011−2012)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	4,353	4,419+2%