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 i7-2600 vs Xeon X5687 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 i7-2600 vs Xeon X5687: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i7-2600

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $258 less on MSRP ($294 MSRP vs $552 MSRP).
✅Delivers 86.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 18.2 vs 9.8 PassMark/$ ($294 MSRP vs $552 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 130W, a 35W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 2000, while Xeon X5687 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon X5687.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X5687 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (2,169 vs 5,386).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon X5687, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads and 36 PCIe lanes.

Xeon X5687

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads, plus 36 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅125% more PCIe lanes (36 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.8 vs 18.2 PassMark/$ ($552 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).
❌36.8% higher power demand at 130W vs 95W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-2600 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i7-2600.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon X5687 better than Core i7-2600?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon X5687 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-2600 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 X5687 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.0% 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 X5687 is the stronger fit. You are getting 148.3% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Xeon X5687 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon X5687 comes in 87.8% more expensive on MSRP at $552 MSRP versus $294 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i7-2600 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 86.4% better value on paper (18.2 vs 9.8 PassMark/$), 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 X5687 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-2600 vs Xeon X5687 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-2600

The Core i7-2600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 9 January 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: 8192 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,346 points. Launch price was $247.

Xeon X5687

The Xeon X5687 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 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.86 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,386 points. Launch price was $121.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i7-2600 and Xeon X5687 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the Core i7-2600 versus 3.86 GHz on the Xeon X5687 — a 1.6% clock advantage for the Xeon X5687 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i7-2600 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5687 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-2600 scores 5,346 against the Xeon X5687's 5,386 — a 0.7% lead for the Xeon X5687. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 659 vs 1,643, a 85.5% lead for the Xeon X5687 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 2,169 vs 5,386 (85.2% advantage for the Xeon X5687). L3 cache: 8192 kB (total) on the Core i7-2600 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon X5687.

Feature	Core i7-2600	Xeon X5687
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz	3.86 GHz+2%
Base Clock	3.4 GHz	3.6 GHz+6%
L3 Cache	8192 kB (total)	12 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	5,346	5,386
Cinebench R23 Multi	3,648	—
Geekbench 6 Single	659	1,643+149%
Geekbench 6 Multi	2,169	5,386+148%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-2600 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X5687 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Xeon X5687 supports up to 288 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 800% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-2600) vs 3 (Xeon X5687). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-2600) vs 36 (Xeon X5687) — the Xeon X5687 offers 20 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H61,H67,P67,Z68,H77,Z77 (Core i7-2600) and X58 (Xeon X5687).

Feature	Core i7-2600	Xeon X5687
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	288 GB+800%
RAM Channels	2	3+50%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	36+125%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-2600) vs VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5687). The Core i7-2600 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 2000), while the Xeon X5687 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-2600 targets Productivity, Xeon X5687 targets Server. Direct competitor: Core i7-2600 rivals FX-8350.

Feature	Core i7-2600	Xeon X5687
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics 2000	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	Productivity	Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-2600 was priced at $294, while the Xeon X5687 came in at $552. On launch pricing ($294 vs $552), Core i7-2600 was $258 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-2600 delivers 18.2 pts/$ vs 9.8 pts/$ for the Xeon X5687 — making the Core i7-2600 the 60.3% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-2600	Xeon X5687
MSRP	$294-47%	$552
Performance per Dollar	18.2+86%	9.8
Release Date	2011	2011

Search Core i7-2600 on Amazon

Search Xeon X5687 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.