FX-8300 vs Xeon E5-2620

FX-8300 vs Xeon E5-2620 Performance Spectrum

FX-8300

8 / 8

5,333

+0.1%

Athlon X4 760K

Ryzen Embedded V1202B

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E5-2620

6 / 12

5,328

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-8300 vs Xeon E5-2620 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-8300 vs Xeon E5-2620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-8300

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $163 less on MSRP ($197 MSRP vs $360 MSRP).
✅Delivers 82.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 27.1 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($197 MSRP vs $360 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2620

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8300 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,328 vs 5,333).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.8 vs 27.1 PassMark/$ ($360 MSRP vs $197 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-8300 better than Xeon E5-2620?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-8300 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-8300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.8% 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-8300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

FX-8300 is the better buy right now. FX-8300 comes in $163 cheaper on MSRP at $197 MSRP versus $360 MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 82.9% better value on MSRP (27.1 vs 14.8 PassMark/$), 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 E5-2620 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

FX-8300 vs Xeon E5-2620 Technical Specifications

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

FX-8300

The FX-8300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 October 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,333 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E5-2620

The Xeon E5-2620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,328 points. Launch price was $36.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-8300 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2620 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the FX-8300 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the FX-8300 versus 2.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 — a 50.7% clock advantage for the FX-8300 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 2 GHz). The FX-8300 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-8300 scores 5,333 against the Xeon E5-2620's 5,328 — a 0.1% lead for the FX-8300.

Feature	FX-8300	Xeon E5-2620
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+33%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+68%	2.5 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz+65%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	15360 kB (total)
L2 Cache	8192 kB+3100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Vishera (2012−2015)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	5,333	5,328

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-8300 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-8300	Xeon E5-2620
Socket	AM3+	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	384 GB
RAM Channels	—	4
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	40

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-8300 was priced at $197, while the Xeon E5-2620 came in at $360. On launch pricing ($197 vs $360), FX-8300 was $163 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-8300 delivers 27.1 pts/$ vs 14.8 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 — making the FX-8300 the 58.6% better value option.

Feature	FX-8300	Xeon E5-2620
MSRP	$197-45%	$360
Performance per Dollar	27.1+83%	14.8
Release Date	2012	2012

Search FX-8300 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2620 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.