N200 vs Xeon X5667

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.

N200 vs Xeon X5667 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.

N200 vs Xeon X5667: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

N200

2023

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 95W, a 89W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA1264 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1366 and older memory support.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X5667 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5667, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $193 MSRP, while Xeon X5667 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon X5667

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,697 vs 4,729).
❌1483.3% higher power demand at 95W vs 6W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1366, while N200 moves to FCBGA1264 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is N200 better than Xeon X5667?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X5667 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while N200 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, N200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

N200 is the better buy right now. N200 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $193 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon X5667 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 9.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

N200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2010), a healthier platform with FCBGA1264 and DDR5 instead of LGA1366, and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/8. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

N200 vs Xeon X5667 Technical Specifications

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

N200

The N200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2023 (2 years ago). It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB Intel® Smart Cache. Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1264. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200, DDR5-4800, LPDDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 4,729 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon X5667

The Xeon X5667 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 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): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,697 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

The N200 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon X5667's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the N200 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon X5667 — a 6.7% clock advantage for the N200. The Xeon X5667 is built on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the N200 scores 4,729 against the Xeon X5667's 4,697 — a 0.7% lead for the N200. L3 cache: 6 MB Intel® Smart Cache on the N200 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon X5667.

Feature	N200	Xeon X5667
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+7%	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	—	3.06 GHz
L3 Cache	6 MB Intel® Smart Cache	12 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	—	256 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-78%	32 nm
Architecture	—	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	4,729	4,697

🧠

Memory & Platform

The N200 uses the FCBGA1264 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon X5667 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	N200	Xeon X5667
Socket	FCBGA1264	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+100%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (N200) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5667). Primary use case: Xeon X5667 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5667 rivals Core i7-980X.