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: +158.1% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Costs $88 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 207.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 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 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 22,430).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Xeon E5-2620 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +158.1% higher average FPS across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Costs $88 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Delivers 207.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $417 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 85W, a 20W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 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 E5-2620 v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 3700X across 3 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (9,255 vs 22,430).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($417 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌30.8% higher power demand at 85W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 3700X better than Xeon E5-2620 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2620 v4 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 158.1% more average FPS across 3 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 142.4% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 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 $88 cheaper on MSRP at $329 MSRP versus $417 MSRP, and it gives you a 158.1% average FPS lead across 3 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 207.2% better value on MSRP (68.2 vs 22.2 PassMark/$), 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 2016), 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 8/16. 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 E5-2620 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	200 FPS	158 FPS
medium	163 FPS	137 FPS
high	137 FPS	109 FPS
ultra	110 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	156 FPS	133 FPS
medium	121 FPS	112 FPS
high	100 FPS	88 FPS
ultra	80 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	84 FPS	62 FPS
medium	71 FPS	56 FPS
high	56 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	34 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	561 FPS	188 FPS
medium	525 FPS	170 FPS
high	428 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	383 FPS	121 FPS
1440p
low	545 FPS	162 FPS
medium	471 FPS	149 FPS
high	394 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	105 FPS
4K
low	350 FPS	106 FPS
medium	304 FPS	97 FPS
high	274 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	242 FPS	68 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	561 FPS	231 FPS
medium	561 FPS	231 FPS
high	561 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	231 FPS
medium	561 FPS	231 FPS
high	538 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	470 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	499 FPS	231 FPS
medium	394 FPS	231 FPS
high	343 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	275 FPS	231 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-2620 v4
1080p
low	561 FPS	231 FPS
medium	561 FPS	231 FPS
high	561 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	231 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	231 FPS
medium	561 FPS	231 FPS
high	561 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	231 FPS
4K
low	561 FPS	231 FPS
medium	501 FPS	231 FPS
high	447 FPS	231 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	231 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon E5-2620 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 3700X and Xeon E5-2620 v4

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 E5-2620 v4

The Xeon E5-2620 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 9,255 points. Launch price was $417.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Ryzen 7 3700X and Xeon E5-2620 v4 share an identical 8-core/16-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 3700X versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — a 37.8% clock advantage for the Ryzen 7 3700X (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 3700X scores 22,430 against the Xeon E5-2620 v4's 9,255 — a 83.2% lead for the Ryzen 7 3700X. L3 cache: 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 3700X vs 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2620 v4.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+47%	3 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+71%	2.1 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB+60%	20 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	2 MB+300%
Process	7 nm, 12 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	22,430+142%	9,255

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-3200 memory speed. The Xeon E5-2620 v4 supports up to 1536 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 169.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 4 (Xeon E5-2620 v4). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 40 (Xeon E5-2620 v4) — the Xeon E5-2620 v4 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 X99,Intel C612 (Xeon E5-2620 v4).

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon E5-2620 v4
Socket	AM4	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	DDR4-2133
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	1536 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	40+67%

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 7 3700X launched at $329 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2620 v4 debuted at $417. On MSRP ($329 vs $417), the Ryzen 7 3700X is $88 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 3700X delivers 68.2 pts/$ vs 22.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 v4 — making the Ryzen 7 3700X the 101.8% better value option.