
Ryzen 5 3600
Popular choices:

Xeon W-3245
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
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
2019Why buy it
- ✅+45.5% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 22 MB).
- ✅Costs $2,000 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 528.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 88.9 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3245.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (9,500 vs 18,000).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Xeon W-3245
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.1 vs 88.9 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 5 3600.
Ryzen 5 3600
2019Xeon W-3245
2019Why buy it
- ✅+45.5% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 22 MB).
- ✅Costs $2,000 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 528.6% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 88.9 vs 14.1 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon W-3245.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.0% higher average FPS across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245 across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (9,500 vs 18,000).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.1 vs 88.9 PassMark/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 5 3600.
Quick Answers
So, is Xeon W-3245 better than Ryzen 5 3600?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 200 FPS | 185 FPS |
| medium | 161 FPS | 150 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 106 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 154 FPS | 148 FPS |
| medium | 119 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 96 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 75 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 70 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 70 FPS |
| high | 46 FPS | 56 FPS |
| ultra | 36 FPS | 44 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 531 FPS |
| medium | 404 FPS | 447 FPS |
| high | 332 FPS | 372 FPS |
| ultra | 295 FPS | 335 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 420 FPS | 461 FPS |
| medium | 359 FPS | 399 FPS |
| high | 303 FPS | 336 FPS |
| ultra | 263 FPS | 290 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 297 FPS | 287 FPS |
| medium | 259 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 230 FPS | 228 FPS |
| ultra | 201 FPS | 199 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| medium | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| high | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| ultra | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| medium | 442 FPS | 715 FPS |
| high | 442 FPS | 677 FPS |
| ultra | 432 FPS | 603 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 524 FPS |
| medium | 361 FPS | 428 FPS |
| high | 305 FPS | 387 FPS |
| ultra | 242 FPS | 314 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| medium | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| high | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| ultra | 442 FPS | 753 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| medium | 442 FPS | 777 FPS |
| high | 442 FPS | 696 FPS |
| ultra | 442 FPS | 601 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 442 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 442 FPS | 566 FPS |
| high | 413 FPS | 504 FPS |
| ultra | 357 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon W-3245


Ryzen 5 3600
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-3245
Xeon W-3245
The Xeon W-3245 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 31,089 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Processing Power
The Ryzen 5 3600 packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3245 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245 has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the Ryzen 5 3600 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245 — a 9.1% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3245 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Ryzen 5 3600 uses the Matisse (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Xeon W-3245 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 5 3600 scores 17,685 against the Xeon W-3245's 31,089 — a 55% lead for the Xeon W-3245. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 9,500 vs 18,000 (61.8% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,295 vs 1,353, a 4.4% lead for the Xeon W-3245 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,898 vs 11,698 (144.2% advantage for the Xeon W-3245). L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 3600 vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245.
| Feature | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 16 / 32+167% |
| Boost Clock | 4.2 GHz | 4.6 GHz+10% |
| Base Clock | 3.6 GHz+12% | 3.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB (total)+45% | 22 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 16 MB+3100% |
| Process | 7 nm, 12 nm-50% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Matisse (2019−2020) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 17,685 | 31,089+76% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 9,500 | 18,000+89% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 1,295 | 1,353+4% |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 1,898 | 11,698+516% |
Memory & Platform
The Ryzen 5 3600 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3245 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Xeon W-3245 supports up to 1024 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 5 3600) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 5 3600) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245) — the Xeon W-3245 offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD B550,AMD X570,AMD B450,AMD X470 (Ryzen 5 3600) and C621 (Xeon W-3245).
| Feature | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM4 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0+33% | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-3200 | DDR4-2933 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 1024 GB+700% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 6+200% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 64+167% |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen 5 3600 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Xeon W-3245 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: Yes (Ryzen 5 3600) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3245). Primary use case: Ryzen 5 3600 targets Gaming/Budget Workstation, Xeon W-3245 targets Professional Workstation. Direct competitor: Ryzen 5 3600 rivals Core i5-10400; Xeon W-3245 rivals Threadripper 2950X.
| Feature | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | Yes | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Gaming/Budget Workstation | Professional Workstation |
Value Analysis
The Ryzen 5 3600 launched at $199 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3245 debuted at $2199. On MSRP ($199 vs $2199), the Ryzen 5 3600 is $2000 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 5 3600 delivers 88.9 pts/$ vs 14.1 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245 — making the Ryzen 5 3600 the 145.1% better value option.
| Feature | Ryzen 5 3600 | Xeon W-3245 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199-91% | $2199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 88.9+530% | 14.1 |
| Release Date | 2019 | 2019 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












