Xeon X5667 vs FX-6350
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X5667 outperforms FX-6350 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing FX-6350 and Xeon X5667 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1573 | 1561 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.99 | 0.68 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Vishera (2012−2015) | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 29 April 2013 (11 years ago) | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
| Current price | $69 | $312 (3.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
FX-6350 has 46% better value for money than Xeon X5667.
Detailed specifications
FX-6350 and Xeon X5667 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3.06 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 3.46 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6144 KB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | 239 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 61 °C | 83 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 1,170 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
| P0 Vcore voltage | Min: 1.25 V - Max: 1.4125 V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on FX-6350 and Xeon X5667 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | AM3+ | FCLGA1366,LGA1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by FX-6350 and Xeon X5667. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 40 Bit |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
FX-6350 and Xeon X5667 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by FX-6350 and Xeon X5667 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by FX-6350 and Xeon X5667. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 288 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 32 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by FX-6350 and Xeon X5667.
| PCIe version | n/a | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Xeon X5667 outperforms FX-6350 by 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon X5667 outperforms FX-6350 by 2% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon X5667 outperforms FX-6350 by 17% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon X5667 outperforms FX-6350 by 58% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.94 | 3.01 |
| Recency | 29 April 2013 | 16 March 2010 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 6 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 95 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FX-6350 and Xeon X5667.
Note that FX-6350 is a desktop processor while Xeon X5667 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between FX-6350 and Xeon X5667, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
