FX-8150 vs Xeon E5-2648L

FX-8150 vs Xeon E5-2648L Performance Spectrum

FX-8150

8 / 8

5,318

+1.1%

Athlon Silver 3050U

Ryzen Embedded V1202B

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E5-2648L

8 / 16

5,262

0.0%

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-8150 vs Xeon E5-2648L 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-8150 vs Xeon E5-2648L: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-8150

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2648L, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $245 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2648L mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌78.6% higher power demand at 125W vs 70W.

Xeon E5-2648L

2012

Why buy it

✅+150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 70W instead of 125W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8150 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,262 vs 5,318).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-8150 better than Xeon E5-2648L?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2648L makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-8150 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, FX-8150 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.0% 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, FX-8150 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

FX-8150 is the better buy right now. FX-8150 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $245 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (21.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon E5-2648L makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and 150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-8150 vs Xeon E5-2648L Technical Specifications

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

FX-8150

The FX-8150 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 12 October 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8192 kB. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,318 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E5-2648L

The Xeon E5-2648L is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 20480 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 70 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,262 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-8150 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Xeon E5-2648L's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-8150 versus 2.3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2648L — a 58.5% clock advantage for the FX-8150 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The FX-8150 uses the Zambezi (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5-2648L uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-8150 scores 5,318 against the Xeon E5-2648L's 5,262 — a 1.1% lead for the FX-8150. L3 cache: 8192 kB on the FX-8150 vs 20480 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2648L.

Feature	FX-8150	Xeon E5-2648L
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+83%	2.3 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+100%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	8192 kB	20480 kB (total)+150%
L2 Cache	8192 kB+3100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Zambezi (2011−2012)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	5,318+1%	5,262

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-8150 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5-2648L uses LGA2011 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.