Xeon W3670 vs Xeon X5675

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.

Xeon W3670 vs Xeon X5675 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.

Xeon W3670 vs Xeon X5675: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Xeon W3670

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $1,190 less on MSRP ($250 MSRP vs $1,440 MSRP).
✅Delivers 476.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.7 vs 4.5 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $1,440 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌36.8% higher power demand at 130W vs 95W.

Xeon X5675

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 95W instead of 130W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,418 vs 6,424).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.5 vs 25.7 PassMark/$ ($1,440 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon W3670 better than Xeon X5675?

Yes. Xeon W3670 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W3670 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Xeon W3670 is the better buy right now. Xeon W3670 comes in $1,190 cheaper on MSRP at $250 MSRP versus $1,440 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 476.5% better value on MSRP (25.7 vs 4.5 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon X5675 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Xeon W3670 vs Xeon X5675 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon W3670

The Xeon W3670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,424 points. Launch price was $295.

Xeon X5675

The Xeon X5675 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12288 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,418 points. Launch price was $162.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon W3670 and Xeon X5675 share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.46 GHz on the Xeon W3670 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon X5675 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.2 GHz vs 3.06 GHz). The Xeon W3670 uses the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5675 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon W3670 scores 6,424 against the Xeon X5675's 6,418 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon W3670. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Xeon W3670 vs 12288 kB (total) on the Xeon X5675.

Feature	Xeon W3670	Xeon X5675
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	3.46 GHz	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+5%	3.06 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	12288 kB (total)
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Gulftown (2010−2011)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	6,424	6,418

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA1366 socket with PCIe 2.0.

Feature	Xeon W3670	Xeon X5675
Socket	LGA1366	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Xeon W3670) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5675). Primary use case: Xeon X5675 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5675 rivals Core i7-980X.

Feature	Xeon W3670	Xeon X5675
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	—	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon W3670 was priced at $250, while the Xeon X5675 came in at $1440. On launch pricing ($250 vs $1440), Xeon W3670 was $1190 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon W3670 delivers 25.7 pts/$ vs 4.5 pts/$ for the Xeon X5675 — making the Xeon W3670 the 140.9% better value option.

Feature	Xeon W3670	Xeon X5675
MSRP	$250-83%	$1440
Performance per Dollar	25.7+471%	4.5
Release Date	2010	2011

Search Xeon W3670 on Amazon

Search Xeon X5675 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.