FX-6350 vs Xeon X5667

FX-6350 vs Xeon X5667 Performance Spectrum

FX-6350

6 / 6

4,640

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon X5667

4 / 8

4,697

+1.2%

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-6350 vs Xeon X5667 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-6350 vs Xeon X5667: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-6350

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,640 vs 4,697).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5667, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $132 MSRP, while Xeon X5667 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌31.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 95W.

Xeon X5667

2010

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.
✅Draws 95W instead of 125W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is FX-6350 better than Xeon X5667?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X5667 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-6350 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 X5667 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

FX-6350 is the better buy right now. FX-6350 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $132 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon X5667 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 1.2% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (35.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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-6350 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-6350 vs Xeon X5667 Technical Specifications

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

FX-6350

The FX-6350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 April 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L2 cache: 6144 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,640 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon X5667

The Xeon X5667 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,697 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-6350 packs 6 cores / 6 threads, while the Xeon X5667 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the FX-6350 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-6350 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon X5667 — a 19.3% clock advantage for the FX-6350 (base: 3.9 GHz vs 3.06 GHz). The FX-6350 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5667 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-6350 scores 4,640 against the Xeon X5667's 4,697 — a 1.2% lead for the Xeon X5667.

Feature	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
Cores / Threads	6 / 6+50%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+21%	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	3.9 GHz+27%	3.06 GHz
L3 Cache	—	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	6144 kB+2300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Vishera (2012−2015)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	4,640	4,697+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-6350 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X5667 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-6350	Xeon X5667
Socket	AM3+	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (FX-6350) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5667). Primary use case: Xeon X5667 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5667 rivals Core i7-980X.