FX-9590 vs Xeon E5-2687W

FX-9590 vs Xeon E5-2687W Performance Spectrum

FX-9590

8 / 8

10,194

+1.6%

Ryzen Threadripper 7960X

Xeon E5-2687W

8 / 16

10,036

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-9590 vs Xeon E5-2687W 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-9590 vs Xeon E5-2687W: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-9590

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $1,535 less on MSRP ($350 MSRP vs $1,885 MSRP).
✅Delivers 447.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 29.1 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($350 MSRP vs $1,885 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2687W, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌46.7% higher power demand at 220W vs 150W.

Xeon E5-2687W

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Draws 150W instead of 220W, a 70W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-9590 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (10,036 vs 10,194).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.3 vs 29.1 PassMark/$ ($1,885 MSRP vs $350 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-9590 better than Xeon E5-2687W?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2687W makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-9590 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-9590 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 15.9% 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-9590 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

FX-9590 is the better buy right now. FX-9590 comes in $1,535 cheaper on MSRP at $350 MSRP versus $1,885 MSRP, and it still gives you a 15.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 447.1% better value on MSRP (29.1 vs 5.3 PassMark/$), 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-9590 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

FX-9590 vs Xeon E5-2687W Technical Specifications

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

FX-9590

The FX-9590 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 4.7 GHz, with boost up to 5 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: 10,194 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E5-2687W

The Xeon E5-2687W 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 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 20480 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 150 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 10,036 points. Launch price was $815.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-9590 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, matching the Xeon E5-2687W's 8 cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the FX-9590 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-2687W — a 27.3% clock advantage for the FX-9590 (base: 4.7 GHz vs 3.1 GHz). The FX-9590 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5-2687W uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the FX-9590 scores 10,194 against the Xeon E5-2687W's 10,036 — a 1.6% lead for the FX-9590.

Feature	FX-9590	Xeon E5-2687W
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5 GHz+32%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	4.7 GHz+52%	3.1 GHz
L3 Cache	—	20480 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	10,194+2%	10,036

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-9590 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5-2687W uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-9590	Xeon E5-2687W
Socket	AM3+	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-9590 was priced at $350, while the Xeon E5-2687W came in at $1885. On launch pricing ($350 vs $1885), FX-9590 was $1535 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-9590 delivers 29.1 pts/$ vs 5.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2687W — making the FX-9590 the 138.2% better value option.

Feature	FX-9590	Xeon E5-2687W
MSRP	$350-81%	$1885
Performance per Dollar	29.1+449%	5.3
Release Date	2013	2012

Search FX-9590 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2687W 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.