Ryzen 7 260
Xeon W-3245M
Ryzen 7 260 vs Xeon W-3245M Performance Spectrum
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 7 260 vs Xeon W-3245M 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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Ryzen 7 260 vs Xeon W-3245M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.
Ryzen 7 260
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +7.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅Costs $4,803 less on MSRP ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 2399.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 142.4 vs 5.7 PassMark/$ ($199 MSRP vs $5,002 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 45W instead of 205W, a 160W reduction.
- ✅Newer platform on FP8 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (28,339 vs 28,494).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 22 MB).
- ❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3245M, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.
Xeon W-3245M
2019Why buy it
- ✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
- ✅+37.5% larger total L3 cache (22 MB vs 16 MB).
- ✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 20.
- ✅220% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 260 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 142.4 PassMark/$ ($5,002 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ❌355.6% higher power demand at 205W vs 45W.
- ❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Ryzen 7 260 moves to FP8 and DDR5.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 7 260 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen 7 260 better than Xeon W-3245M?
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?
Ryzen 7 260 vs Xeon W-3245M Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
Ryzen 7 260
The Ryzen 7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 5.1 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP8. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 28,339 points. Launch price was $299.
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 7 260 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon W-3245M offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon W-3245M has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5.1 GHz on the Ryzen 7 260 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3245M — a 10.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 260 (base: 3.8 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Hawk Point (2024−2025) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon W-3245M uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 260 scores 28,339 against the Xeon W-3245M's 28,494 — a 0.5% lead for the Xeon W-3245M. L3 cache: 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 260 vs 22 MB on the Xeon W-3245M.
| Feature | Ryzen 7 260 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 16 | 16 / 32+100% |
| Boost Clock | 5.1 GHz+11% | 4.6 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3.8 GHz+19% | 3.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 16 MB (total) | 22 MB+38% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 16 MB+1500% |
| Process | 4 nm-71% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Hawk Point (2024−2025) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 28,339 | 28,494 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 18,500 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,474 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 11,572 |
Memory & Platform
The Ryzen 7 260 uses the FP8 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3245M uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR5-5600 on the Ryzen 7 260 versus DDR4-2933 on the Xeon W-3245M — the Ryzen 7 260 supports 90.9% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3245M supports up to 2048 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 3100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 260) vs 6 (Xeon W-3245M). PCIe lanes: 20 (Ryzen 7 260) vs 64 (Xeon W-3245M) — the Xeon W-3245M offers 44 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.
| Feature | Ryzen 7 260 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FP8 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0+33% | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR5-5600+91% | DDR4-2933 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB | 2048 GB+3100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 6+200% |
| ECC Support | No | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 20 | 64+220% |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: AMD-V (Ryzen 7 260) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon W-3245M). The Ryzen 7 260 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 780M), while the Xeon W-3245M requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen 7 260 targets Mobile, Xeon W-3245M targets Professional Workstation / Mac Pro. Direct competitor: Xeon W-3245M rivals Xeon Gold 6242.
| Feature | Ryzen 7 260 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | Radeon 780M | — |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | Yes | Yes |
| Virtualization | AMD-V | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | Mobile | Professional Workstation / Mac Pro |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Ryzen 7 260 was priced at $199, while the Xeon W-3245M came in at $5002. On launch pricing ($199 vs $5002), Ryzen 7 260 was $4803 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 260 delivers 142.4 pts/$ vs 5.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3245M — making the Ryzen 7 260 the 184.6% better value option.
| Feature | Ryzen 7 260 | Xeon W-3245M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199-96% | $5002 |
| Performance per Dollar | 142.4+2398% | 5.7 |
| Release Date | 2025 | 2019 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Ryzen 7 260 and Xeon W-3245M
