Core i3-3250 vs Xeon E5606

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 E5606 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 E5606: 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: +4.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 80W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5606, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $138 MSRP, while Xeon E5606 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5606

2011

Why buy it

✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i3-3250 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,443 vs 2,460).
❌45.5% higher power demand at 80W vs 55W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-3250 better than Xeon E5606?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5606 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 4.6% 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 0.7% 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 $138 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (17.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-3250 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i3-3250 vs Xeon E5606 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 E5606

The Xeon E5606 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 0.13 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,443 points. Launch price was $46.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-3250 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5606 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5606 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the Core i3-3250 versus 0.13 GHz on the Xeon E5606 — a 185.7% clock advantage for the Core i3-3250 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Core i3-3250 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5606 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3250 scores 2,460 against the Xeon E5606's 2,443 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i3-3250. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3250 vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E5606.

Feature	Core i3-3250	Xeon E5606
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+2592%	0.13 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+64%	2.13 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	8 MB (total)+167%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,460	2,443

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-3250 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5606 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.