Core i7-2620M 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 i7-2620M 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 i7-2620M 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 i7-2620M

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 80W, a 45W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD 3000, while Xeon E5606 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,424 vs 2,443).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5606, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $346 MSRP, while Xeon E5606 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5606

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.

Trade-offs

❌128.6% higher power demand at 80W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-2620M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-2620M 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 i7-2620M is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5606 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 100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB).

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

Core i7-2620M is the better buy right now. Core i7-2620M comes in at an unclear MSRP at $346 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 9 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon E5606 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.8% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon E5606 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 100% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 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 i7-2620M vs Xeon E5606 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-2620M

The Core i7-2620M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,424 points. Launch price was $346.

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 i7-2620M packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5606 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5606 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i7-2620M versus 0.13 GHz on the Xeon E5606 — a 185.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-2620M (base: 2.7 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Core i7-2620M uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5606 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-2620M scores 2,424 against the Xeon E5606's 2,443 — a 0.8% lead for the Xeon E5606. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Core i7-2620M vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E5606.

Feature	Core i7-2620M	Xeon E5606
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz+2515%	0.13 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz+27%	2.13 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB	8 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	2,424	2,443
Geekbench 6 Single	509	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,222	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-2620M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5606 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-2620M	Xeon E5606
Socket	PGA988	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-2620M) / not specified (Xeon E5606). The Core i7-2620M includes integrated graphics (HD 3000), while the Xeon E5606 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-2620M targets Budget. Direct competitor: Core i7-2620M rivals Core i5-2410M.