
Core i3-3250T

Xeon E5-2407
Core i3-3250T vs Xeon E5-2407 Performance Spectrum
About PassMark
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 E5-2407 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Core i3-3250T vs Xeon E5-2407: 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
2013Why buy it
- β Costs $112 less on MSRP ($138 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
- β Delivers 80.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.2 vs 10.6 PassMark/$ ($138 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
- β Draws 35W instead of 80W, a 45W reduction.
- β 100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- β Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 2500, while Xeon E5-2407 needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- βLower PassMark (2,650 vs 2,659).
- βSmaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 10 MB).
- βLess compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2407, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.
Xeon E5-2407
2012Why buy it
- β +0.3% higher PassMark.
- β +233.3% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 3 MB).
- β Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.
Trade-offs
- βLower PassMark per dollar, at 10.6 vs 19.2 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $138 MSRP).
- β128.6% higher power demand at 80W vs 35W.
- βNo integrated graphics, while Core i3-3250T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i3-3250T better than Xeon E5-2407?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Core i3-3250T vs Xeon E5-2407 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 (2012β2013) 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 E5-2407
The Xeon E5-2407 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 May 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EN (2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 10240 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1356. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,659 points. Launch price was $335.
Processing Power
The Core i3-3250T packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5-2407 offers 4 cores / 4 threads β the Xeon E5-2407 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Core i3-3250T versus 2.2 GHz on the Xeon E5-2407 β a 30.8% clock advantage for the Core i3-3250T (base: 3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The Core i3-3250T uses the Ivy Bridge (2012β2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-2407 uses Sandy Bridge-EN (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-3250T scores 2,650 against the Xeon E5-2407's 2,659 β a 0.3% lead for the Xeon E5-2407. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-3250T vs 10240 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2407.
| Feature | Core i3-3250T | Xeon E5-2407 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 3 GHz+36% | 2.2 GHz |
| Base Clock | 3 GHz+36% | 2.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 3 MB (total) | 10240 kB (total)+233% |
| L2 Cache | 256 kB (per core) | 256 kB (per core) |
| Process | 22 nm-31% | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Ivy Bridge (2012β2013) | Sandy Bridge-EN (2012) |
| PassMark | 2,650 | 2,659 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i3-3250T uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2407 uses LGA1356 (PCIe 2.0) β making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i3-3250T | Xeon E5-2407 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1155 | LGA1356 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1600 | β |
| Max RAM Capacity | 32 GB | β |
| RAM Channels | 2 | β |
| ECC Support | No | β |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | β |
Advanced Features
The Core i3-3250T includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 2500), while the Xeon E5-2407 requires a dedicated GPU.
| Feature | Core i3-3250T | Xeon E5-2407 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | β |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | β |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Core i3-3250T was priced at $138, while the Xeon E5-2407 came in at $250. On launch pricing ($138 vs $250), Core i3-3250T was $112 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i3-3250T delivers 19.2 pts/$ vs 10.6 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2407 β making the Core i3-3250T the 57.4% better value option.
| Feature | Core i3-3250T | Xeon E5-2407 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $138-45% | $250 |
| Performance per Dollar | 19.2+81% | 10.6 |
| Release Date | 2013 | 2012 |
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.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














