FX-9830P vs Xeon X3480

FX-9830P vs Xeon X3480 Performance Spectrum

FX-9830P

4 / 4

3,298

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon X3480

4 / 8

3,327

+0.9%

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-9830P vs Xeon X3480 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-9830P vs Xeon X3480: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-9830P

2016

Why buy it

✅Costs $462 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $612 MSRP).
✅Delivers 304.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 22.0 vs 5.4 PassMark/$ ($150 MSRP vs $612 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 95W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X3480 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,298 vs 3,327).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X3480, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.

Xeon X3480

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.4 vs 22.0 PassMark/$ ($612 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
❌171.4% higher power demand at 95W vs 35W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon X3480 better than FX-9830P?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X3480 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-9830P is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon X3480 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% 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, Xeon X3480 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon X3480 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Xeon X3480 comes in 308.0% more expensive on MSRP at $612 MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. FX-9830P only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 6.7% in the shared gaming data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

FX-9830P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-9830P vs Xeon X3480 Technical Specifications

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

FX-9830P

The FX-9830P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 31 May 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB (per module). Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FP4. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 3,298 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon X3480

The Xeon X3480 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 May 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Lynnfield (2009−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 GHz, with boost up to 3.73 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1156. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 3,327 points. Launch price was $612.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-9830P packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon X3480's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the FX-9830P versus 3.73 GHz on the Xeon X3480 — a 0.8% clock advantage for the Xeon X3480 (base: 3 GHz vs 3.06 GHz). The FX-9830P uses the Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Xeon X3480 uses Lynnfield (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the FX-9830P scores 3,298 against the Xeon X3480's 3,327 — a 0.9% lead for the Xeon X3480.

Feature	FX-9830P	Xeon X3480
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	3.73 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz	3.06 GHz+2%
L3 Cache	—	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per module)+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	28 nm-38%	45 nm
Architecture	Bristol Ridge (2016−2019)	Lynnfield (2009−2010)
PassMark	3,298	3,327

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-9830P uses the FP4 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon X3480 uses LGA1156 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-9830P	Xeon X3480
Socket	FP4	LGA1156
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-9830P was priced at $150, while the Xeon X3480 came in at $612. On launch pricing ($150 vs $612), FX-9830P was $462 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-9830P delivers 22.0 pts/$ vs 5.4 pts/$ for the Xeon X3480 — making the FX-9830P the 120.7% better value option.

Feature	FX-9830P	Xeon X3480
MSRP	$150-75%	$612
Performance per Dollar	22.0+307%	5.4
Release Date	2016	2010

Search FX-9830P on Amazon

Search Xeon X3480 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.