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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Ryzen 5 3600

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +102.2% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Costs $218 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 300.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 88.9 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅66.7% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 3600 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 17,685).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 88.9 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.

Ryzen 5 3600

2019

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +102.2% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Costs $218 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 300.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 88.9 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅66.7% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 3600 across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 17,685).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 88.9 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 5 3600 better than Xeon E5-2620 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2620 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 5 3600 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 5 3600 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 102.2% more average FPS across 3 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 5 3600 is the better fit. You are getting 91.1% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

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

Ryzen 5 3600 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 5 3600 is $218 cheaper on MSRP at $199 MSRP versus $417 MSRP, and it gives you a 102.2% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 300.4% better value on MSRP (88.9 vs 22.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Ryzen 5 3600 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2016), 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Ryzen 5 3600 Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2620 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	200 FPS	158 FPS
medium	161 FPS	137 FPS
high	135 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	106 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	154 FPS	133 FPS
medium	119 FPS	112 FPS
high	96 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	70 FPS	62 FPS
medium	58 FPS	56 FPS
high	46 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	34 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	442 FPS	188 FPS
medium	404 FPS	170 FPS
high	332 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	295 FPS	121 FPS
1440p
low	420 FPS	162 FPS
medium	359 FPS	149 FPS
high	303 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	263 FPS	105 FPS
4K
low	297 FPS	106 FPS
medium	259 FPS	97 FPS
high	230 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	201 FPS	68 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	442 FPS	231 FPS
medium	442 FPS	231 FPS
high	442 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	442 FPS	231 FPS
medium	442 FPS	231 FPS
high	442 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	432 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	231 FPS
medium	361 FPS	231 FPS
high	305 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	242 FPS	231 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	442 FPS	231 FPS
medium	442 FPS	231 FPS
high	442 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	442 FPS	231 FPS
medium	442 FPS	231 FPS
high	442 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	231 FPS
medium	442 FPS	231 FPS
high	413 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	357 FPS	231 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E5-2620 v4

Ryzen 5 3600

The Ryzen 5 3600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 July 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 12 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Dual-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 17,685 points. Launch price was $199.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

The Xeon E5-2620 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 9,255 points. Launch price was $417.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 5 3600 packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the Ryzen 5 3600 versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — a 33.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 5 3600 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Ryzen 5 3600 uses the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 5 3600 scores 17,685 against the Xeon E5-2620 v4's 9,255 — a 62.6% lead for the Ryzen 5 3600. L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 3600 vs 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2620 v4.

Feature	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz+40%	3 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+71%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB (total)+60%	20 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	2 MB+300%
Process	7 nm, 12 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Matisse (2019−2020)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	17,685+91%	9,255
Cinebench R23 Multi	9,500	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,295	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,898	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 5 3600 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2620 v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 5 3600) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2620 v4). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 5 3600) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2620 v4) — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD B550,AMD X570,AMD B450,AMD X470 (Ryzen 5 3600) and Intel X99,Intel C612 (Xeon E5-2620 v4).

Feature	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Socket	AM4	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1536 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	40+67%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: Yes (Ryzen 5 3600) / not specified (Xeon E5-2620 v4). Primary use case: Ryzen 5 3600 targets Gaming/Budget Workstation. Direct competitor: Ryzen 5 3600 rivals Core i5-10400.

Feature	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	Yes	—
Target Use	Gaming/Budget Workstation	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 5 3600 launched at $199 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 debuted at $417. On MSRP ($199 vs $417), the Ryzen 5 3600 is $218 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 5 3600 delivers 88.9 pts/$ vs 22.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — making the Ryzen 5 3600 the 120.1% better value option.