Core i3-3240T vs Core i7-640M

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 i3-3240T vs Core i7-640M 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 i3-3240T vs Core i7-640M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-3240T

2012

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,078 vs 2,092).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $117 MSRP, while Core i7-640M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-640M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-640M

2010

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake), while Core i3-3240T needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-640M better than Core i3-3240T?

Yes. Core i7-640M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.7% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-640M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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 i7-640M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% 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 i7-640M is still the much better call for a fresh build. Core i7-640M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $117 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-3240T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2012 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (17.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1155.

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

Core i3-3240T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-3240T vs Core i7-640M Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-3240T

The Core i3-3240T 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 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,078 points. Launch price was $69.

Core i7-640M

The Core i7-640M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Arrandale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,092 points. Launch price was $346.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i3-3240T and Core i7-640M share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Core i3-3240T versus 3.46 GHz on the Core i7-640M — a 14.2% clock advantage for the Core i7-640M (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Core i3-3240T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Core i7-640M uses Arrandale (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3240T scores 2,078 against the Core i7-640M's 2,092 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i7-640M. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3240T vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-640M.

Feature	Core i3-3240T	Core i7-640M
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3 GHz	3.46 GHz+15%
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+4%	2.8 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	4 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Arrandale (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,078	2,092

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-3240T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-640M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-3240T	Core i7-640M
Socket	LGA1155	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	1066
Max RAM Capacity	—	8
RAM Channels	—	2
ECC Support	—	No
PCIe Lanes	—	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core i3-3240T) / true (Core i7-640M). The Core i7-640M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ironlake)), while the Core i3-3240T requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-640M rivals Core 2 Duo T9600.