Core i7-2640M vs Xeon D-1602

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 i7-2640M vs Xeon D-1602 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 i7-2640M vs Xeon D-1602: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i7-2640M

2011

Why buy it

✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 3 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 3000, while Xeon D-1602 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,445 vs 2,459).
❌Launch MSRP is still $346 MSRP, while Xeon D-1602 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌29.6% higher power demand at 35W vs 27W.

Xeon D-1602

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 27W instead of 35W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 4 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-2640M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon D-1602 better than Core i7-2640M?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon D-1602 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-2640M 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 D-1602 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Xeon D-1602 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon D-1602 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $346 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark. Core i7-2640M only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (7.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Xeon D-1602 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 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 i7-2640M vs Xeon D-1602 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-2640M

The Core i7-2640M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 September 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 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: 2,445 points. Launch price was $346.

Xeon D-1602

The Xeon D-1602 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1667. Thermal design power (TDP): 27 Watt. Memory support: DDR4, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,459 points. Launch price was $106.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i7-2640M and Xeon D-1602 share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the Core i7-2640M versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon D-1602 — a 9% clock advantage for the Core i7-2640M (base: 2.8 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i7-2640M uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon D-1602 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-2640M scores 2,445 against the Xeon D-1602's 2,459 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon D-1602. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Core i7-2640M vs 3 MB on the Xeon D-1602.

Feature	Core i7-2640M	Xeon D-1602
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz+9%	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.8 GHz+12%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB+33%	3 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	2,445	2,459
Geekbench 6 Single	563	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,184	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-2640M uses the PGA988 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon D-1602 uses FCBGA1667 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-2640M	Xeon D-1602
Socket	PGA988	FCBGA1667
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	16	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Core i7-2640M) / not specified (Xeon D-1602). The Core i7-2640M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 3000), while the Xeon D-1602 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-2640M rivals Phenom II Black Edition N660.