FX-7600P vs Xeon X3380

FX-7600P vs Xeon X3380 Performance Spectrum

FX-7600P

4 / 4

2,557

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon X3380

2,568

+0.4%

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-7600P vs Xeon X3380 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-7600P vs Xeon X3380: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-7600P

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 95W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X3380 across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,557 vs 2,568).
❌Launch MSRP is still $150 MSRP, while Xeon X3380 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon X3380

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.4% higher average FPS across 48 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌171.4% higher power demand at 95W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon X3380 better than FX-7600P?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X3380 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-7600P 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 X3380 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.4% more average FPS across 48 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon X3380 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark.

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

Xeon X3380 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Xeon X3380 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.4% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data. FX-7600P only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 6.4% in the shared gaming data.

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

FX-7600P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-7600P vs Xeon X3380 Technical Specifications

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

FX-7600P

The FX-7600P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 June 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L2 cache: 4096 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 2,557 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon X3380

The Xeon X3380 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Base frequency: 3.16 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 2,568 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-7600P is built on the Kaveri (2014−2015) architecture. In PassMark, the FX-7600P scores 2,557 against the Xeon X3380's 2,568 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon X3380.

Feature	FX-7600P	Xeon X3380
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	—
Boost Clock	3.6 GHz	—
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	3.16 GHz+17%
L3 Cache	—	12 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	4096 kB	—
Process	28 nm-38%	45 nm
Architecture	Kaveri (2014−2015)	—
PassMark	2,557	2,568