Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U vs Xeon E5-1620

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U vs Xeon E5-1620 Performance Spectrum

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U

4 / 4

5,831

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E5-1620

4 / 8

5,848

+0.3%

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.

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U vs Xeon E5-1620 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.

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U vs Xeon E5-1620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 130W, a 115W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,831 vs 5,848).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 10 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1620, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-1620

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 4 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $885 MSRP, while Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌766.7% higher power demand at 130W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-1620 better than Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U 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 E5-1620 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.2% 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 E5-1620 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 150% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 4 MB).

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

Xeon E5-1620 is the better buy right now. Xeon E5-1620 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $885 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U vs Xeon E5-1620 Technical Specifications

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

Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U

The Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 8 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Picasso (2019−2022) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 12 nm process technology. Socket: FP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 5,831 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E5-1620

The Xeon E5-1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10240 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,848 points. Launch price was $313.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon E5-1620's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 — a 8.2% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1620 (base: 2.1 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U uses the Picasso (2019−2022) architecture (12 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U scores 5,831 against the Xeon E5-1620's 5,848 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon E5-1620. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U vs 10240 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620.

Feature	Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U	Xeon E5-1620
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz	3.8 GHz+9%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	3.6 GHz+71%
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	10240 kB (total)+150%
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	12 nm-63%	32 nm
Architecture	Picasso (2019−2022)	Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,831	5,848
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	3,469
Geekbench 6 Single	—	612
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	2,250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U uses the FP5 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.