Core 2 Duo SU9300 vs Xeon E3120

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.

Core 2 Duo SU9300 vs Xeon E3120 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.

Core 2 Duo SU9300 vs Xeon E3120: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core 2 Duo SU9300

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 65W, a 62W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E3120 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,392 vs 1,408).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 6 MB).

Xeon E3120

2008

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 3 MB).

Trade-offs

❌2066.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 3W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3120 better than Core 2 Duo SU9300?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3120 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core 2 Duo SU9300 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E3120 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.4% 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, Xeon E3120 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 3 MB).

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

Xeon E3120 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon E3120 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Xeon E3120 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Core 2 Duo SU9300 vs Xeon E3120 Technical Specifications

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

Core 2 Duo SU9300

The Core 2 Duo SU9300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2008-01-01. It is based on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 3 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: BGA956. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,392 points. Launch price was $249.

Xeon E3120

The Xeon E3120 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Base frequency: 3.16 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,408 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core 2 Duo SU9300 is built on the Penryn (2008−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Core 2 Duo SU9300 scores 1,392 against the Xeon E3120's 1,408 — a 1.1% lead for the Xeon E3120. L3 cache: 3 MB L2 Cache on the Core 2 Duo SU9300 vs 6 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E3120.

Feature	Core 2 Duo SU9300	Xeon E3120
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	—
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	3.16 GHz+163%
L3 Cache	3 MB L2 Cache	6 MB L2 Cache+100%
L2 Cache	3 MB	—
Process	45 nm	45 nm
Architecture	Penryn (2008−2011)	—
PassMark	1,392	1,408+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core 2 Duo SU9300 uses the BGA956 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Xeon E3120 uses LGA775 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.