Core i7-3667U 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 i7-3667U 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 i7-3667U 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 i7-3667U

2012

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 4000, while Xeon D-1602 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,451 vs 2,459).
❌1796.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 27W.

Xeon D-1602

2019

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 27W instead of 512W, a 485W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 4 MB).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-3667U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon D-1602 better than Core i7-3667U?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon D-1602 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-3667U is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Xeon D-1602 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon D-1602 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.2% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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 2012) 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 i7-3667U vs Xeon D-1602 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-3667U

The Core i7-3667U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,451 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 i7-3667U and Xeon D-1602 share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Core i7-3667U versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon D-1602 — identical boost frequencies (base: 2 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Core i7-3667U uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon D-1602 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-3667U scores 2,451 against the Xeon D-1602's 2,459 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon D-1602. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-3667U vs 3 MB on the Xeon D-1602.

Feature	Core i7-3667U	Xeon D-1602
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.5 GHz+25%
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)+33%	3 MB
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	512 kB+100%
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	2,451	2,459

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-3667U uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon D-1602 uses FCBGA1667 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-3667U	Xeon D-1602
Socket	BGA1023	FCBGA1667
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Core i7-3667U) / not specified (Xeon D-1602). The Core i7-3667U includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4000), while the Xeon D-1602 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Core i7-3667U rivals AMD A10-4655M.