Core i3-3120M vs Xeon L5335

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 i3-3120M vs Xeon L5335 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 i3-3120M vs Xeon L5335: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-3120M

2012

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 4000, while Xeon L5335 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,709 vs 1,737).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5335, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.
❌924% higher power demand at 512W vs 50W.

Xeon L5335

2007

Why buy it

✅+1.6% higher PassMark.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.
✅Draws 50W instead of 512W, a 462W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $380 MSRP, while Core i3-3120M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-3120M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon L5335 better than Core i3-3120M?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon L5335 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-3120M is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon L5335 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).

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

Xeon L5335 is the better buy right now. Xeon L5335 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $380 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.6% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i3-3120M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-3120M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2007). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-3120M vs Xeon L5335 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-3120M

The Core i3-3120M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,709 points. Launch price was $160.

Xeon L5335

The Xeon L5335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 13 August 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Clovertown (2006−2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 50 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 1,737 points. Launch price was $380.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-3120M packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon L5335 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon L5335 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Core i3-3120M versus 2 GHz on the Xeon L5335 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Core i3-3120M (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core i3-3120M uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon L5335 uses Clovertown (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3120M scores 1,709 against the Xeon L5335's 1,737 — a 1.6% lead for the Xeon L5335. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3120M vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon L5335.

Feature	Core i3-3120M	Xeon L5335
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+25%	2 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+25%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	8 MB L2 Cache+167%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+6300%	4 MB (total)
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Clovertown (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,709	1,737+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	440	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	930	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-3120M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon L5335 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-3120M	Xeon L5335
Socket	PGA988	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-3120M) / not specified (Xeon L5335). The Core i3-3120M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4000), while the Xeon L5335 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-3120M targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i3-3120M rivals AMD A8-4500M.