Ryzen 7 3700X vs Xeon E5-1620

Ryzen 7 3700X vs Xeon E5-1620 Performance Spectrum

Ryzen 7 3700X

8 / 16

22,430

+283.5%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen 9 9900X3D

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Xeon E5-1620

4 / 8

5,848

0.0%

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 3700X vs Xeon E5-1620 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.

Ryzen 7 3700X vs Xeon E5-1620: 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 3700X

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +124.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+220% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 10 MB).
✅Costs $556 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).
✅Delivers 931.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 6.6 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 130W, a 65W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1620, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-1620

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 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 7 3700X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,848 vs 22,430).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (10 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.6 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($885 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌100% higher power demand at 130W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 3700X better than Xeon E5-1620?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 7 3700X is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 7 3700X is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 124.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 7 3700X is the stronger fit. You are getting 283.5% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 220% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 10 MB).

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

Ryzen 7 3700X is the better buy right now. Ryzen 7 3700X comes in $556 cheaper on MSRP at $329 MSRP versus $885 MSRP, and it still gives you a 124.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 931.7% better value on MSRP (68.2 vs 6.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Ryzen 7 3700X makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2012), 220% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 10 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Ryzen 7 3700X vs Xeon E5-1620 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Ryzen 7 3700X

The Ryzen 7 3700X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 July 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. 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: 22,430 points. Launch price was $329.

Xeon E5-1620

The Xeon E5-1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10240 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,848 points. Launch price was $313.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 7 3700X packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-1620 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Ryzen 7 3700X has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 3700X versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 — a 14.6% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 3700X (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 3700X scores 22,430 against the Xeon E5-1620's 5,848 — a 117.3% lead for the Ryzen 7 3700X. L3 cache: 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 3700X vs 10240 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1620
Cores / Threads	8 / 16+100%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+16%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz	3.6 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB+220%	10240 kB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	7 nm, 12 nm-78%	32 nm
Architecture	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)	Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)
PassMark	22,430+284%	5,848
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	3,469
Geekbench 6 Single	—	612
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	2,250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen 7 3700X versus DDR3-1600 on the Xeon E5-1620 — the Ryzen 7 3700X supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-1620 supports up to 375 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 193% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 4 (Xeon E5-1620). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 40 (Xeon E5-1620) — the Xeon E5-1620 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 500 series,AMD 400 series,AMD 300 series (Ryzen 7 3700X) and Intel C600,Intel X79 (Xeon E5-1620).

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1620
Socket	AM4	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+100%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200+100%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	375 GB+193%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	40+67%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Ryzen 7 3700X) / true (Xeon E5-1620).

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1620
Integrated GPU	No	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	true

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Ryzen 7 3700X was priced at $329, while the Xeon E5-1620 came in at $885. On launch pricing ($329 vs $885), Ryzen 7 3700X was $556 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 3700X delivers 68.2 pts/$ vs 6.6 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1620 — making the Ryzen 7 3700X the 164.7% better value option.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1620
MSRP	$329-63%	$885
Performance per Dollar	68.2+933%	6.6
Release Date	2019	2012

Search Ryzen 7 3700X on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-1620 on Amazon

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.