
FX-9370

Xeon X5675
FX-9370 vs Xeon X5675 Performance Spectrum
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 X5675 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
FX-9370 vs Xeon X5675: 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
2013Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +16.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $1,398 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $1,440 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 3305.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 151.8 vs 4.5 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $1,440 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (6,374 vs 6,418).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5675, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.
- ❌131.6% higher power demand at 220W vs 95W.
Xeon X5675
2011Why buy it
- ✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
- ✅Draws 95W instead of 220W, a 125W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-9370 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.5 vs 151.8 PassMark/$ ($1,440 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is FX-9370 better than Xeon X5675?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
FX-9370 vs Xeon X5675 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 X5675
The Xeon X5675 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12288 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,418 points. Launch price was $162.
Processing Power
The FX-9370 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon X5675 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 X5675 — a 30.4% clock advantage for the FX-9370 (base: 4.4 GHz vs 3.06 GHz). The FX-9370 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5675 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-9370 scores 6,374 against the Xeon X5675's 6,418 — a 0.7% lead for the Xeon X5675.
| Feature | FX-9370 | Xeon X5675 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 8+33% | 6 / 12 |
| Boost Clock | 4.7 GHz+36% | 3.46 GHz |
| Base Clock | 4.4 GHz+44% | 3.06 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 12288 kB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 8192 kB+3100% | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Vishera (2012−2015) | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) |
| PassMark | 6,374 | 6,418 |
Memory & Platform
The FX-9370 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X5675 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | FX-9370 | Xeon X5675 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM3+ | LGA1366 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1333 |
| RAM Channels | — | 3 |
| ECC Support | — | Yes |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (FX-9370) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5675). Primary use case: Xeon X5675 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5675 rivals Core i7-980X.
| Feature | FX-9370 | Xeon X5675 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | — | Workstation |
Value Analysis
At launch, the FX-9370 was priced at $42, while the Xeon X5675 came in at $1440. On launch pricing ($42 vs $1440), FX-9370 was $1398 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-9370 delivers 151.8 pts/$ vs 4.5 pts/$ for the Xeon X5675 — making the FX-9370 the 188.6% better value option.
| Feature | FX-9370 | Xeon X5675 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $42-97% | $1440 |
| Performance per Dollar | 151.8+3273% | 4.5 |
| Release Date | 2013 | 2011 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
















