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

✅Costs $4,120 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 635.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,430 vs 41,267).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3275

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +31.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+20.3% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 32 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 24.
✅166.7% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 24) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.

Ryzen 7 3700X

2019

Xeon W-3275

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $4,120 less on MSRP ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Delivers 635.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 68.2 vs 9.3 PassMark/$ ($329 MSRP vs $4,449 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 205W, a 140W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +31.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+20.3% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 32 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 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-3275 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (22,430 vs 41,267).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 39 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.3 vs 68.2 PassMark/$ ($4,449 MSRP vs $329 MSRP).
❌215.4% higher power demand at 205W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W-3275 better than Ryzen 7 3700X?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon W-3275 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, Xeon W-3275 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 31.0% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W-3275 is the better fit. You are getting 84% better PassMark, backed by 28 cores and 56 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 20.3% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 32 MB).

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

Xeon W-3275 is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen 7 3700X makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Xeon W-3275 is 1252.3% more expensive on MSRP at $4,449 MSRP versus $329 MSRP, and it gives you a 31.0% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen 7 3700X is also 635.0% better value on MSRP (68.2 vs 9.3 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Xeon W-3275 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 20.3% larger total L3 cache (39 MB vs 32 MB), more multi-core headroom with 28 cores / 56 threads instead of 8/16, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. 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 W-3275 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	200 FPS	198 FPS
medium	163 FPS	162 FPS
high	137 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	110 FPS	106 FPS
1440p
low	156 FPS	159 FPS
medium	121 FPS	125 FPS
high	100 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	80 FPS	83 FPS
4K
low	84 FPS	87 FPS
medium	71 FPS	74 FPS
high	56 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	44 FPS	47 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon W-3275

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	561 FPS	607 FPS
medium	525 FPS	522 FPS
high	428 FPS	420 FPS
ultra	383 FPS	371 FPS
1440p
low	545 FPS	514 FPS
medium	471 FPS	447 FPS
high	394 FPS	370 FPS
ultra	337 FPS	306 FPS
4K
low	350 FPS	306 FPS
medium	304 FPS	266 FPS
high	274 FPS	243 FPS
ultra	242 FPS	213 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon W-3275

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	561 FPS	1025 FPS
medium	561 FPS	928 FPS
high	561 FPS	876 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	793 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	808 FPS
medium	561 FPS	715 FPS
high	538 FPS	675 FPS
ultra	470 FPS	605 FPS
4K
low	499 FPS	519 FPS
medium	394 FPS	429 FPS
high	343 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	275 FPS	315 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon W-3275

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon W-3275
1080p
low	561 FPS	1032 FPS
medium	561 FPS	1014 FPS
high	561 FPS	885 FPS
ultra	561 FPS	773 FPS
1440p
low	561 FPS	932 FPS
medium	561 FPS	804 FPS
high	561 FPS	702 FPS
ultra	555 FPS	603 FPS
4K
low	561 FPS	680 FPS
medium	501 FPS	591 FPS
high	447 FPS	521 FPS
ultra	396 FPS	437 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 3700X Open Xeon W-3275

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 3700X and Xeon W-3275

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 W-3275

The Xeon W-3275 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 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 41,267 points. Launch price was $4,449.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 7 3700X packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon W-3275 offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275 has 20 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Ryzen 7 3700X versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275 — a 4.4% clock advantage for the Xeon W-3275 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) architecture (7 nm, 12 nm), while the Xeon W-3275 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 3700X scores 22,430 against the Xeon W-3275's 41,267 — a 59.1% lead for the Xeon W-3275. L3 cache: 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 3700X vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon W-3275
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	28 / 56+250%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz	4.6 GHz+5%
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+44%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	32 MB	38.5 MB+20%
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	28 MB+5500%
Process	7 nm, 12 nm-50%	14 nm
Architecture	Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	22,430	41,267+84%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 3700X uses the AM4 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3275 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the Ryzen 7 3700X versus 3200 on the Xeon W-3275 — the Xeon W-3275 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275 supports up to 1024 of RAM compared to 128 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275). PCIe lanes: 24 (Ryzen 7 3700X) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275) — the Xeon W-3275 offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD 500 series,AMD 400 series,AMD 300 series (Ryzen 7 3700X) and C621 (Xeon W-3275).

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon W-3275
Socket	AM4	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200	3200+79900%
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+13107100%	1024
RAM Channels	2	6+200%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	24	64+167%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Ryzen 7 3700X) / VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3275). Direct competitor: Xeon W-3275 rivals Threadripper 3970X.

Feature	Ryzen 7 3700X	Xeon W-3275
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	—	None
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The Ryzen 7 3700X launched at $329 MSRP, while the Xeon W-3275 debuted at $4449. On MSRP ($329 vs $4449), the Ryzen 7 3700X is $4120 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Ryzen 7 3700X delivers 68.2 pts/$ vs 9.3 pts/$ for the Xeon W-3275 — making the Ryzen 7 3700X the 152.1% better value option.