Core i3-3240 vs Core m7-6Y75

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 m7-6Y75 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 m7-6Y75: 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 $261 less on MSRP ($132 MSRP vs $393 MSRP).
✅Delivers 196.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 17.8 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($132 MSRP vs $393 MSRP).
✅Draws 55W instead of 512W, a 457W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,352 vs 2,363).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 4 MB).

Core m7-6Y75

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 17.8 PassMark/$ ($393 MSRP vs $132 MSRP).
❌830.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 55W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-3240 better than Core m7-6Y75?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i3-3240 is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core m7-6Y75 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark. Core m7-6Y75 also has the bigger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core m7-6Y75 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).

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 $261 cheaper on MSRP at $132 MSRP versus $393 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Core m7-6Y75 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.5% better PassMark. It is also 196.3% better value on MSRP (17.8 vs 6.0 PassMark/$), 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 m7-6Y75 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2012), 33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i3-3240 vs Core m7-6Y75 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 m7-6Y75

The Core m7-6Y75 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake-Y (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,363 points. Launch price was $393.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i3-3240 and Core m7-6Y75 share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i3-3240 versus 3.1 GHz on the Core m7-6Y75 — a 9.2% clock advantage for the Core i3-3240 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 1.2 GHz). The Core i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core m7-6Y75 uses Skylake-Y (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3240 scores 2,352 against the Core m7-6Y75's 2,363 — a 0.5% lead for the Core m7-6Y75. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3240 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core m7-6Y75.

Feature	Core i3-3240	Core m7-6Y75
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz+10%	3.1 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+183%	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	4 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Skylake-Y (2015)
PassMark	2,352	2,363

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-3240 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core m7-6Y75 uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-3240	Core m7-6Y75
Socket	LGA1155	FCBGA1515
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i3-3240 was priced at $132, while the Core m7-6Y75 came in at $393. On launch pricing ($132 vs $393), Core i3-3240 was $261 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i3-3240 delivers 17.8 pts/$ vs 6.0 pts/$ for the Core m7-6Y75 — making the Core i3-3240 the 99.1% better value option.

Feature	Core i3-3240	Core m7-6Y75
MSRP	$132-66%	$393
Performance per Dollar	17.8+197%	6.0
Release Date	2012	2015

Search Core i3-3240 on Amazon

Search Core m7-6Y75 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.