FX-8370 vs Xeon D-1622

FX-8370 vs Xeon D-1622 Performance Spectrum

FX-8370

8 / 8

6,184

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon D-1622

4 / 8

6,205

+0.3%

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-8370 vs Xeon D-1622 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-8370 vs Xeon D-1622: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-8370

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +22.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Stock Cooler), unlike Xeon D-1622.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,184 vs 6,205).
❌
2.1% HIGHER MSRP
$199 MSRPvs$195 MSRP
❌212.5% higher power demand at 125W vs 40W.

Xeon D-1622

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $4 less on MSRP ($195 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
✅Draws 40W instead of 125W, a 85W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-8370 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike FX-8370.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon D-1622 better than FX-8370?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon D-1622 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-8370 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 D-1622 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon D-1622 is the better buy right now. Xeon D-1622 comes in $4 cheaper on MSRP at $195 MSRP versus $199 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that FX-8370 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 22.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 2.4% better value on MSRP (31.8 vs 31.1 PassMark/$), 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 D-1622 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2014) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

FX-8370 vs Xeon D-1622 Technical Specifications

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

FX-8370

The FX-8370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2 September 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,184 points. Launch price was $199.

Xeon D-1622

The Xeon D-1622 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1667. Thermal design power (TDP): 40 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,205 points. Launch price was $170.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-8370 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon D-1622 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the FX-8370 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the FX-8370 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon D-1622 — a 29.3% clock advantage for the FX-8370 (base: 4 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The FX-8370 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon D-1622 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the FX-8370 scores 6,184 against the Xeon D-1622's 6,205 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon D-1622.

Feature	FX-8370	Xeon D-1622
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+100%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+34%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	4 GHz+54%	2.6 GHz
L3 Cache	—	6 MB
L2 Cache	8192 kB+700%	1 MB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Vishera (2012−2015)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	6,184	6,205
Cinebench R23 Multi	3,800	—
Geekbench 6 Single	520	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	2,050	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-8370 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon D-1622 uses FCBGA1667 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-8370	Xeon D-1622
Socket	AM3+	FCBGA1667
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	20	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (FX-8370) / not specified (Xeon D-1622). Primary use case: FX-8370 targets Legacy Gaming. Direct competitor: FX-8370 rivals Core i5-6400.

Feature	FX-8370	Xeon D-1622
Integrated GPU	No	—
IGPU Model	None	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	—
Target Use	Legacy Gaming	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-8370 was priced at $199, while the Xeon D-1622 came in at $195. On launch pricing ($199 vs $195), Xeon D-1622 was $4 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-8370 delivers 31.1 pts/$ vs 31.8 pts/$ for the Xeon D-1622 — making the Xeon D-1622 the 2.4% better value option.

Feature	FX-8370	Xeon D-1622
MSRP	$199	$195-2%
Performance per Dollar	31.1	31.8+2%
Release Date	2014	2019

Search FX-8370 on Amazon

Search Xeon D-1622 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.