Core i3-3250 vs Xeon D-1602

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 i3-3250 vs Xeon D-1602 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 i3-3250 vs Xeon D-1602: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-3250

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $138 MSRP, while Xeon D-1602 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌103.7% higher power demand at 55W vs 27W.

Xeon D-1602

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 27W instead of 55W, a 28W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i3-3250 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,459 vs 2,460).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-3250 better than Xeon D-1602?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon D-1602 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-3250 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i3-3250 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.6% 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 i3-3250 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-3250 is the better buy right now. Core i3-3250 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $138 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (17.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon D-1602 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-3250 vs Xeon D-1602 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-3250

The Core i3-3250 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 9 June 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 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: DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 2,460 points. Launch price was $138.

Xeon D-1602

The Xeon D-1602 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1667. Thermal design power (TDP): 27 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,459 points. Launch price was $106.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i3-3250 and Xeon D-1602 share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the Core i3-3250 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon D-1602 — a 9% clock advantage for the Core i3-3250 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i3-3250 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon D-1602 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3250 scores 2,460 against the Xeon D-1602's 2,459 — a 0% lead for the Core i3-3250. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3250 vs 3 MB on the Xeon D-1602.

Feature	Core i3-3250	Xeon D-1602
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+9%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+40%	2.5 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)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	2,460	2,459

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-3250 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon D-1602 uses FCBGA1667 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.