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 7 3700X

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +43.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+28% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 25 MB).
✅Costs $1,260 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $1,589 MSRP).
✅Delivers 631.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $1,589 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 135W, a 70W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1681 V3, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-1681 V3

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 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 (14,820 vs 22,430).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (25 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($1,589 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌107.7% higher power demand at 135W vs 65W.

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Xeon E5-1681 V3

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +43.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+28% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 25 MB).
✅Costs $1,260 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $1,589 MSRP).
✅Delivers 631.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $1,589 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 135W, a 70W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 10 cores / 20 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅66.7% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1681 V3, which brings 10 cores / 20 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 3700X across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (14,820 vs 22,430).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (25 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($1,589 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌107.7% higher power demand at 135W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 3700X better than Xeon E5-1681 V3?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-1681 V3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 7 3700X is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 7 3700X is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 43.3% 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 better fit. You are getting 51.3% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 28% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 25 MB).

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

Ryzen 7 3700X is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 7 3700X is $1,260 cheaper on MSRP at $329 MSRP versus $1,589 MSRP, and it gives you a 43.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 631.0% better value on MSRP (68.2 vs 9.3 PassMark/$), 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?

Ryzen 7 3700X is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2014), 28% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 25 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 10/20. 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 7 3700X Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-1681 V3 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1681 V3
1080p
low	200 FPS	163 FPS
medium	163 FPS	141 FPS
high	137 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	110 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	156 FPS	136 FPS
medium	121 FPS	115 FPS
high	100 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	80 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	84 FPS	63 FPS
medium	71 FPS	57 FPS
high	56 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	35 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-1681 V3

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1681 V3
1080p
low	561 FPS	330 FPS
medium	525 FPS	296 FPS
high	428 FPS	258 FPS
ultra	383 FPS	213 FPS
1440p
low	545 FPS	284 FPS
medium	471 FPS	260 FPS
high	394 FPS	227 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	185 FPS
4K
low	350 FPS	184 FPS
medium	304 FPS	168 FPS
high	274 FPS	146 FPS
ultra	242 FPS	116 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-1681 V3

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1681 V3
1080p
low	561 FPS	370 FPS
medium	561 FPS	370 FPS
high	561 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	370 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	370 FPS
medium	561 FPS	370 FPS
high	538 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	470 FPS	342 FPS
4K
low	499 FPS	370 FPS
medium	394 FPS	319 FPS
high	343 FPS	290 FPS
ultra	275 FPS	240 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-1681 V3

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1681 V3
1080p
low	561 FPS	370 FPS
medium	561 FPS	370 FPS
high	561 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	370 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	370 FPS
medium	561 FPS	370 FPS
high	561 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	370 FPS
4K
low	561 FPS	370 FPS
medium	501 FPS	370 FPS
high	447 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	331 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-1681 V3

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 3700X and Xeon E5-1681 V3

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 E5-1681 V3

The Xeon E5-1681 V3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014−2015) architecture. It features 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 25 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011-3. Thermal design power (TDP): 135 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 14,820 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 7 3700X packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-1681 V3 offers 10 cores / 20 threads — the Xeon E5-1681 V3 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 3700X versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-1681 V3 — a 22.8% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 3700X (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Xeon E5-1681 V3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 3700X scores 22,430 against the Xeon E5-1681 V3's 14,820 — a 40.9% lead for the Ryzen 7 3700X. L3 cache: 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 3700X vs 25 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1681 V3.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1681 V3
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	10 / 20+25%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+26%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+24%	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB+28%	25 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	7 nm, 12 nm-68%	22 nm
Architecture	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)	Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
PassMark	22,430+51%	14,820
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,050
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	9,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-1681 V3 uses LGA2011-3 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Xeon E5-1681 V3 supports up to 768 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 142.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 4 (Xeon E5-1681 V3). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 40 (Xeon E5-1681 V3) — the Xeon E5-1681 V3 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 C612,X99 (Xeon E5-1681 V3).

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1681 V3
Socket	AM4	LGA2011-3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	768 GB+500%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	40+67%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Ryzen 7 3700X) / Yes (Xeon E5-1681 V3).

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-1681 V3
Integrated GPU	No	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	Yes

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 7 3700X launched at $329 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-1681 V3 debuted at $1589. On MSRP ($329 vs $1589), the Ryzen 7 3700X is $1260 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 3700X delivers 68.2 pts/$ vs 9.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1681 V3 — making the Ryzen 7 3700X the 151.9% better value option.