FX-6330 vs Xeon X5647

FX-6330 vs Xeon X5647 Performance Spectrum

FX-6330

6 / 6

4,433

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon X5647

4 / 8

4,441

+0.2%

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 X5647 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 X5647: 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

✅Draws 125W instead of 130W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X5647 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (4,433 vs 4,441).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5647, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $109 MSRP, while Xeon X5647 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon X5647

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon X5647 better than FX-6330?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X5647 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 gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon X5647 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.5% 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 X5647 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 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 X5647 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon X5647 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $109 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. FX-6330 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2015 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (40.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on AM3+.

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 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-6330 vs Xeon X5647 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 X5647

The Xeon X5647 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.93 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,441 points. Launch price was $175.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-6330 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, while the Xeon X5647 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the FX-6330 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-6330 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon X5647 — a 27% clock advantage for the FX-6330 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.93 GHz). The FX-6330 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5647 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-6330 scores 4,433 against the Xeon X5647's 4,441 — a 0.2% lead for the Xeon X5647. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the FX-6330 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon X5647.

Feature	FX-6330	Xeon X5647
Cores / Threads	6 / 6+50%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+31%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+23%	2.93 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	Vishera (2012−2015)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	4,433	4,441

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-6330 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X5647 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-6330	Xeon X5647
Socket	AM3+	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 5.0+150%
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1066
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (FX-6330) / VT-x, VT-d (Xeon X5647). Primary use case: Xeon X5647 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5647 rivals Core i7-980X.