FX-6330 vs Xeon E5-1603 v3

FX-6330 vs Xeon E5-1603 v3 Performance Spectrum

FX-6330

6 / 6

4,433

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E5-1603 v3

4 / 4

4,460

+0.6%

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-6330 vs Xeon E5-1603 v3 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-6330 vs Xeon E5-1603 v3: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-6330

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.5% higher average FPS across 11 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $164 less on MSRP ($109 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅Delivers 148.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 40.7 vs 16.3 PassMark/$ ($109 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅Draws 125W instead of 140W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,433 vs 4,460).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 10 MB).

Xeon E5-1603 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-6330 across 11 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.3 vs 40.7 PassMark/$ ($273 MSRP vs $109 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-6330 better than Xeon E5-1603 v3?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1603 v3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-6330 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 v3 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB).

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

FX-6330 is the better buy right now. FX-6330 comes in $164 cheaper on MSRP at $109 MSRP versus $273 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.5% average FPS lead across 11 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon E5-1603 v3 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.6% better PassMark. It is also 148.9% better value on MSRP (40.7 vs 16.3 PassMark/$), 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-6330 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2014). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-6330 vs Xeon E5-1603 v3 Technical Specifications

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

FX-6330

The FX-6330 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 December 2015 (9 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) 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): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,433 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon E5-1603 v3

The Xeon E5-1603 v3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011-3. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1333, DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 4,460 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-6330 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, while the Xeon E5-1603 v3 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the FX-6330 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-6330 versus 2.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1603 v3 — a 40% clock advantage for the FX-6330 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The FX-6330 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the FX-6330 scores 4,433 against the Xeon E5-1603 v3's 4,460 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E5-1603 v3. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the FX-6330 vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1603 v3.

Feature	FX-6330	Xeon E5-1603 v3
Cores / Threads	6 / 6+50%	4 / 4
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+50%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+29%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	10 MB (total)+25%
L2 Cache	6 MB	256K (per core)+4167%
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Vishera (2012−2015)	Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
PassMark	4,433	4,460

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-6330 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses LGA2011-3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-6330	Xeon E5-1603 v3
Socket	AM3+	LGA2011-3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-6330 was priced at $109, while the Xeon E5-1603 v3 came in at $273. On launch pricing ($109 vs $273), FX-6330 was $164 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-6330 delivers 40.7 pts/$ vs 16.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1603 v3 — making the FX-6330 the 85.4% better value option.

Feature	FX-6330	Xeon E5-1603 v3
MSRP	$109-60%	$273
Performance per Dollar	40.7+150%	16.3
Release Date	2015	2014

Search FX-6330 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-1603 v3 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.