FX-9370 vs Xeon W3670

FX-9370 vs Xeon W3670 Performance Spectrum

FX-9370

8 / 8

6,374

0.0%

Ryzen Embedded V1202B

Ryzen Embedded R1606G

FX-8320E

Ryzen 3 PRO 2300U

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon W3670

6 / 12

6,424

+0.8%

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-9370 vs Xeon W3670 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-9370 vs Xeon W3670: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-9370

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +16.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $208 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
✅Delivers 490.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 151.8 vs 25.7 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,374 vs 6,424).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W3670, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.
❌69.2% higher power demand at 220W vs 130W.

Xeon W3670

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
✅Draws 130W instead of 220W, a 90W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-9370 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.7 vs 151.8 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-9370 better than Xeon W3670?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W3670 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-9370 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 W3670 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

FX-9370 is the better buy right now. FX-9370 comes in $208 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $250 MSRP, and it still gives you a 16.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon W3670 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.8% better PassMark. It is also 490.6% better value on MSRP (151.8 vs 25.7 PassMark/$), 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-9370 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-9370 vs Xeon W3670 Technical Specifications

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

FX-9370

The FX-9370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 4.4 GHz, with boost up to 4.7 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 220 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,374 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon W3670

The Xeon W3670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 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): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,424 points. Launch price was $295.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-9370 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon W3670 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the FX-9370 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.7 GHz on the FX-9370 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon W3670 — a 30.4% clock advantage for the FX-9370 (base: 4.4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The FX-9370 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon W3670 uses Gulftown (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-9370 scores 6,374 against the Xeon W3670's 6,424 — a 0.8% lead for the Xeon W3670.

Feature	FX-9370	Xeon W3670
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+33%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.7 GHz+36%	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	4.4 GHz+38%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	—	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	8192 kB+3100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Vishera (2012−2015)	Gulftown (2010−2011)
PassMark	6,374	6,424

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-9370 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon W3670 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-9370	Xeon W3670
Socket	AM3+	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-9370 was priced at $42, while the Xeon W3670 came in at $250. On launch pricing ($42 vs $250), FX-9370 was $208 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-9370 delivers 151.8 pts/$ vs 25.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W3670 — making the FX-9370 the 142.1% better value option.

Feature	FX-9370	Xeon W3670
MSRP	$42-83%	$250
Performance per Dollar	151.8+491%	25.7
Release Date	2013	2010

Search FX-9370 on Amazon

Search Xeon W3670 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.