Core i5-6402P vs Xeon E3-1270

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 i5-6402P vs Xeon E3-1270 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 i5-6402P vs Xeon E3-1270: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i5-6402P

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $148 less on MSRP ($182 MSRP vs $330 MSRP).
✅Delivers 80.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 29.4 vs 16.3 PassMark/$ ($182 MSRP vs $330 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E3-1270 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,343 vs 5,376).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E3-1270, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.

Xeon E3-1270

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.3 vs 29.4 PassMark/$ ($330 MSRP vs $182 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1270 better than Core i5-6402P?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3-1270 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-6402P 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 E3-1270 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 11.8% 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 E3-1270 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 6 MB).

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

Xeon E3-1270 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon E3-1270 comes in 81.3% more expensive on MSRP at $330 MSRP versus $182 MSRP, and it still gives you a 11.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-6402P only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2015 platform. Even with 80.2% better value on paper (29.4 vs 16.3 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA1151.

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

Core i5-6402P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i5-6402P vs Xeon E3-1270 Technical Specifications

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

Core i5-6402P

The Core i5-6402P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 December 2015 (9 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1866/2133, DDR3L-1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 5,343 points. Launch price was $187.

Xeon E3-1270

The Xeon E3-1270 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 April 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,376 points. Launch price was $369.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-6402P packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon E3-1270's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i5-6402P versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E3-1270 — a 11.1% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1270 (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Core i5-6402P uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E3-1270 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-6402P scores 5,343 against the Xeon E3-1270's 5,376 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E3-1270. L3 cache: 6 MB on the Core i5-6402P vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1270.

Feature	Core i5-6402P	Xeon E3-1270
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	3.8 GHz+12%
Base Clock	2.8 GHz	3.4 GHz+21%
L3 Cache	6 MB	8 MB (total)+33%
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Skylake (2015−2016)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,343	5,376

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-6402P uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E3-1270 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-6402P	Xeon E3-1270
Socket	LGA1151	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-6402P was priced at $182, while the Xeon E3-1270 came in at $330. On launch pricing ($182 vs $330), Core i5-6402P was $148 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-6402P delivers 29.4 pts/$ vs 16.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E3-1270 — making the Core i5-6402P the 57.2% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-6402P	Xeon E3-1270
MSRP	$182-45%	$330
Performance per Dollar	29.4+80%	16.3
Release Date	2015	2011

Search Core i5-6402P on Amazon

Search Xeon E3-1270 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.