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: +15.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $56 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $255 MSRP).
✅Delivers 20.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 88.9 vs 73.5 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $255 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,898 vs 9,104).
❌No integrated graphics, while Xeon W-1350 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon W-1350

2021

Why buy it

✅+379.7% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics P750, while Ryzen 5 3600 needs a discrete GPU.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 3600 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 73.5 vs 88.9 PassMark/$ ($255 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.

Ryzen 5 3600

2019

Xeon W-1350

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +15.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Costs $56 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $255 MSRP).
✅Delivers 20.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 88.9 vs 73.5 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $255 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+379.7% higher Geekbench multi-core.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics P750, while Ryzen 5 3600 needs a discrete GPU.
✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (1,898 vs 9,104).
❌No integrated graphics, while Xeon W-1350 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 5 3600 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 73.5 vs 88.9 PassMark/$ ($255 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 5 3600 better than Xeon W-1350?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-1350 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-1350 is the better fit. You are getting 379.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Ryzen 5 3600 is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 5 3600 is $56 cheaper on MSRP at $199 MSRP versus $255 MSRP, and it gives you a 15.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The trade-off is that Xeon W-1350 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 379.7% better Geekbench multi-core. It is also 20.9% better value on MSRP (88.9 vs 73.5 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon W-1350 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2019), more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 6/12, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 W-1350 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon W-1350
1080p
low	200 FPS	246 FPS
medium	161 FPS	229 FPS
high	135 FPS	191 FPS
ultra	106 FPS	164 FPS
1440p
low	154 FPS	217 FPS
medium	119 FPS	184 FPS
high	96 FPS	148 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	130 FPS
4K
low	70 FPS	151 FPS
medium	58 FPS	128 FPS
high	46 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	36 FPS	87 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon W-1350

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon W-1350
1080p
low	442 FPS	315 FPS
medium	404 FPS	267 FPS
high	332 FPS	244 FPS
ultra	295 FPS	221 FPS
1440p
low	420 FPS	280 FPS
medium	359 FPS	239 FPS
high	303 FPS	221 FPS
ultra	263 FPS	197 FPS
4K
low	297 FPS	222 FPS
medium	259 FPS	191 FPS
high	230 FPS	179 FPS
ultra	201 FPS	146 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon W-1350

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon W-1350
1080p
low	442 FPS	469 FPS
medium	442 FPS	469 FPS
high	442 FPS	440 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	380 FPS
1440p
low	442 FPS	469 FPS
medium	442 FPS	463 FPS
high	442 FPS	396 FPS
ultra	432 FPS	345 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	385 FPS
medium	361 FPS	337 FPS
high	305 FPS	293 FPS
ultra	242 FPS	242 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon W-1350

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon W-1350
1080p
low	442 FPS	469 FPS
medium	442 FPS	469 FPS
high	442 FPS	469 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	469 FPS
1440p
low	442 FPS	469 FPS
medium	442 FPS	469 FPS
high	442 FPS	469 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	469 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	469 FPS
medium	442 FPS	469 FPS
high	413 FPS	451 FPS
ultra	357 FPS	392 FPS

Open Ryzen 5 3600 Open Xeon W-1350

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon W-1350

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 W-1350

The Xeon W-1350 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 May 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Rocket Lake-S (2021) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1200. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 18,742 points. Launch price was $255.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon W-1350 share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the Ryzen 5 3600 versus 5 GHz on the Xeon W-1350 — a 17.4% clock advantage for the Xeon W-1350 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Ryzen 5 3600 uses the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Xeon W-1350 uses Rocket Lake-S (2021) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 5 3600 scores 17,685 against the Xeon W-1350's 18,742 — a 5.8% lead for the Xeon W-1350. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,295 vs 2,140, a 49.2% lead for the Xeon W-1350 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,898 vs 9,104 (131% advantage for the Xeon W-1350). L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 3600 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon W-1350.

Feature	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon W-1350
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz	5 GHz+19%
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+9%	3.3 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB (total)+167%	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB (per core)
Process	7 nm, 12 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Matisse (2019−2020)	Rocket Lake-S (2021)
PassMark	17,685	18,742+6%
Cinebench R23 Multi	9,500	—
Geekbench 6 Single	1,295	2,140+65%
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,898	9,104+380%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 5 3600 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-1350 uses LGA1200 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 5 3600) vs 20 (Xeon W-1350) — the Ryzen 5 3600 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD B550,AMD X570,AMD B450,AMD X470 (Ryzen 5 3600) and W580,C252,C256 (Xeon W-1350).

Feature	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon W-1350
Socket	AM4	LGA1200
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	DDR4-3200
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24+20%	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Xeon W-1350 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support Yes virtualization. The Xeon W-1350 includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P750), while the Ryzen 5 3600 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen 5 3600 targets Gaming/Budget Workstation. Direct competitor: Ryzen 5 3600 rivals Core i5-10400.

Feature	Ryzen 5 3600	Xeon W-1350
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	UHD Graphics P750
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	Yes	Yes
Target Use	Gaming/Budget Workstation	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 5 3600 launched at $199 MSRP, while the Xeon W-1350 debuted at $255. On MSRP ($199 vs $255), the Ryzen 5 3600 is $56 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 5 3600 delivers 88.9 pts/$ vs 73.5 pts/$ for the Xeon W-1350 — making the Ryzen 5 3600 the 18.9% better value option.