
Ryzen 5 5600
Popular choices:

Xeon W-3245M
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 5600
2022Why buy it
- ✅+45.5% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 22 MB).
- ✅Costs $4,803 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1801.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 108.3 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Wraith Stealth), unlike Xeon W-3245M.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245M across 36 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (11,077 vs 18,500).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245M, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Xeon W-3245M
2019Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.8% higher average FPS across 36 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 108.3 PassMark/$ ($5,002 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 5 5600.
Ryzen 5 5600
2022Xeon W-3245M
2019Why buy it
- ✅+45.5% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 22 MB).
- ✅Costs $4,803 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1801.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 108.3 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Wraith Stealth), unlike Xeon W-3245M.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +12.8% higher average FPS across 36 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
- ✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3245M across 36 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (11,077 vs 18,500).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245M, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 32 MB).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 108.3 PassMark/$ ($5,002 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 5 5600.
Quick Answers
So, is Xeon W-3245M better than Ryzen 5 5600?
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 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 161 FPS | 185 FPS |
| medium | 130 FPS | 150 FPS |
| high | 112 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 93 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 141 FPS | 148 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 95 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 78 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 69 FPS | 70 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 56 FPS |
| ultra | 44 FPS | 44 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Ryzen 5 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 508 FPS | 531 FPS |
| medium | 419 FPS | 447 FPS |
| high | 351 FPS | 372 FPS |
| ultra | 310 FPS | 335 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 447 FPS | 461 FPS |
| medium | 375 FPS | 399 FPS |
| high | 323 FPS | 336 FPS |
| ultra | 277 FPS | 290 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 313 FPS | 287 FPS |
| medium | 268 FPS | 248 FPS |
| high | 243 FPS | 228 FPS |
| ultra | 209 FPS | 199 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Ryzen 5 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| medium | 526 FPS | 712 FPS |
| high | 483 FPS | 712 FPS |
| ultra | 414 FPS | 712 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| medium | 434 FPS | 712 FPS |
| high | 396 FPS | 677 FPS |
| ultra | 339 FPS | 603 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 371 FPS | 524 FPS |
| medium | 298 FPS | 428 FPS |
| high | 255 FPS | 387 FPS |
| ultra | 197 FPS | 314 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Ryzen 5 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| medium | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| high | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| ultra | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| medium | 539 FPS | 712 FPS |
| high | 539 FPS | 696 FPS |
| ultra | 493 FPS | 601 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 501 FPS | 646 FPS |
| medium | 448 FPS | 566 FPS |
| high | 398 FPS | 504 FPS |
| ultra | 349 FPS | 437 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 5 5600 and Xeon W-3245M


Ryzen 5 5600
Ryzen 5 5600
The Ryzen 5 5600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 20 April 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Vermeer (2020−2025) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: AM4. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 21,550 points. Launch price was $299.

Xeon W-3245M
Xeon W-3245M
The Xeon W-3245M 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: 28,494 points. Launch price was $5,002.
Processing Power
The Ryzen 5 5600 packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Xeon W-3245M offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245M has 10 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 5 5600 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245M — a 4.4% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3245M (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Ryzen 5 5600 uses the Vermeer (2020−2025) architecture (7 nm), while the Xeon W-3245M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 5 5600 scores 21,550 against the Xeon W-3245M's 28,494 — a 27.8% lead for the Xeon W-3245M. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 11,077 vs 18,500 (50.2% advantage for the Xeon W-3245M). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,052 vs 1,474, a 32.8% lead for the Ryzen 5 5600 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 8,600 vs 11,572 (29.5% advantage for the Xeon W-3245M). L3 cache: 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen 5 5600 vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245M.
| Feature | Ryzen 5 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 16 / 32+167% |
| Boost Clock | 4.4 GHz | 4.6 GHz+5% |
| Base Clock | 3.5 GHz+9% | 3.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB (total)+45% | 22 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512K (per core) | 16 MB+3100% |
| Process | 7 nm-50% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Vermeer (2020−2025) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 21,550 | 28,494+32% |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | 11,077 | 18,500+67% |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 2,052+39% | 1,474 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 8,600 | 11,572+35% |
Memory & Platform
The Ryzen 5 5600 uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3245M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Xeon W-3245M supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 176.5% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 5 5600) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245M). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 5 5600) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245M) — the Xeon W-3245M offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: B550,X570,B450,X470,A520 (Ryzen 5 5600) and C621 (Xeon W-3245M).
| Feature | Ryzen 5 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | AM4 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0+33% | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-3200 | DDR4-2933 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 128 GB | 2048 GB+1500% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 6+200% |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 64+167% |
Advanced Features
Only the Ryzen 5 5600 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Only the Xeon W-3245M supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Ryzen 5 5600) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3245M). Primary use case: Ryzen 5 5600 targets Desktop, Xeon W-3245M targets Professional Workstation / Mac Pro. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3245M rivals Xeon Gold 6242.
| Feature | Ryzen 5 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| Unlocked | Yes | No |
| AVX-512 | No | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Desktop | Professional Workstation / Mac Pro |
Value Analysis
The Ryzen 5 5600 launched at $199 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3245M debuted at $5002. On MSRP ($199 vs $5002), the Ryzen 5 5600 is $4803 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 5 5600 delivers 108.3 pts/$ vs 5.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245M — making the Ryzen 5 5600 the 180% better value option.
| Feature | Ryzen 5 5600 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199-96% | $5002 |
| Performance per Dollar | 108.3+1800% | 5.7 |
| Release Date | 2022 | 2019 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












