Core i3-3240 vs Core i3-6102E

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 i3-3240 vs Core i3-6102E 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 i3-3240 vs Core i3-6102E: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-3240

2012

Why buy it

✅Costs $93 less on MSRP ($132 MSRP vs $225 MSRP).
✅Delivers 70.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.8 vs 10.4 PassMark/$ ($132 MSRP vs $225 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌120% higher power demand at 55W vs 25W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-6102E can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i3-6102E

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 25W instead of 55W, a 30W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 530, while Core i3-3240 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,349 vs 2,352).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.4 vs 17.8 PassMark/$ ($225 MSRP vs $132 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-3240 better than Core i3-6102E?

Yes. Core i3-3240 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.1% 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?

If gaming is the priority, Core i3-3240 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.1% 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, Core i3-3240 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-3240 is the better buy right now. Core i3-3240 comes in $93 cheaper on MSRP at $132 MSRP versus $225 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 70.7% better value on MSRP (17.8 vs 10.4 PassMark/$), 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 i3-6102E makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-3240 vs Core i3-6102E Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-3240

The Core i3-3240 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 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 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,352 points. Launch price was $75.

Core i3-6102E

The Core i3-6102E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 12 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 2,349 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i3-3240 and Core i3-6102E share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i3-3240 versus 1.9 GHz on the Core i3-6102E — a 56.6% clock advantage for the Core i3-3240. The Core i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i3-6102E uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3240 scores 2,352 against the Core i3-6102E's 2,349 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i3-3240. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3240 vs 3 MB on the Core i3-6102E.

Feature	Core i3-3240	Core i3-6102E
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz+79%	1.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz	—
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	3 MB
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	512 kB+100%
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	2,352	2,349

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core i3-3240) / VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-6102E). The Core i3-6102E includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 530), while the Core i3-3240 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-6102E targets Embedded.

Feature	Core i3-3240	Core i3-6102E
Integrated GPU	—	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics 530
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Embedded

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i3-3240 was priced at $132, while the Core i3-6102E came in at $225. On launch pricing ($132 vs $225), Core i3-3240 was $93 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i3-3240 delivers 17.8 pts/$ vs 10.4 pts/$ for the Core i3-6102E — making the Core i3-3240 the 52.2% better value option.

Feature	Core i3-3240	Core i3-6102E
MSRP	$132-41%	$225
Performance per Dollar	17.8+71%	10.4
Release Date	2012	2015

Search Core i3-3240 on Amazon

Search Core i3-6102E 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.