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 i3-3250T vs Xeon E5-2403 v2 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 i3-3250T vs Xeon E5-2403 v2: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-3250T

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $54 less on MSRP ($138 MSRP vs $192 MSRP).
✅Delivers 38.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.2 vs 13.9 PassMark/$ ($138 MSRP vs $192 MSRP).
✅Draws 35W instead of 80W, a 45W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 2500, while Xeon E5-2403 v2 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2403 v2 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,650 vs 2,672).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 10 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2403 v2, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads and 24 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2403 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+233.3% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 3 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads, plus 24 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅50% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 13.9 vs 19.2 PassMark/$ ($192 MSRP vs $138 MSRP).
❌128.6% higher power demand at 80W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-3250T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2403 v2 better than Core i3-3250T?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2403 v2 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-3250T is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-2403 v2 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.4% 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, Xeon E5-2403 v2 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 233.3% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 3 MB).

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

Xeon E5-2403 v2 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon E5-2403 v2 comes in 39.1% more expensive on MSRP at $192 MSRP versus $138 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-3250T only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 38.0% better value on paper (19.2 vs 13.9 PassMark/$), 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?

Xeon E5-2403 v2 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 233.3% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 3 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 4 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 i3-3250T vs Xeon E5-2403 v2 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-3250T

The Core i3-3250T 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 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: DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 2,650 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon E5-2403 v2

The Xeon E5-2403 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-EN (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,672 points. Launch price was $223.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-3250T packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5-2403 v2 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5-2403 v2 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Core i3-3250T versus 1.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-2403 v2 — a 50% clock advantage for the Core i3-3250T (base: 3 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Core i3-3250T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-2403 v2 uses Ivy Bridge-EN (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3250T scores 2,650 against the Xeon E5-2403 v2's 2,672 — a 0.8% lead for the Xeon E5-2403 v2. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3250T vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-2403 v2.

Feature	Core i3-3250T	Xeon E5-2403 v2
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3 GHz+67%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+67%	1.8 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	10 MB (total)+233%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Ivy Bridge-EN (2013−2014)
PassMark	2,650	2,672

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-3250T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2403 v2 uses LGA1356 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Core i3-3250T versus DDR3-1333 on the Xeon E5-2403 v2 — the Core i3-3250T supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-2403 v2 supports up to 384 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 1100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i3-3250T) vs 3 (Xeon E5-2403 v2). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i3-3250T) vs 24 (Xeon E5-2403 v2) — the Xeon E5-2403 v2 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core i3-3250T	Xeon E5-2403 v2
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1356
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+20%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	384 GB+1100%
RAM Channels	2	3+50%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	24+50%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core i3-3250T) / VT-x, VT-d (Xeon E5-2403 v2). The Core i3-3250T includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 2500), while the Xeon E5-2403 v2 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Xeon E5-2403 v2 targets Server.

Feature	Core i3-3250T	Xeon E5-2403 v2
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics 2500	—
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i3-3250T was priced at $138, while the Xeon E5-2403 v2 came in at $192. On launch pricing ($138 vs $192), Core i3-3250T was $54 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i3-3250T delivers 19.2 pts/$ vs 13.9 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2403 v2 — making the Core i3-3250T the 31.9% better value option.

Feature	Core i3-3250T	Xeon E5-2403 v2
MSRP	$138-28%	$192
Performance per Dollar	19.2+38%	13.9
Release Date	2013	2013

Search Core i3-3250T on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2403 v2 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.