Core i7-970 vs Xeon E7340

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 i7-970 vs Xeon E7340 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 i7-970 vs Xeon E7340: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i7-970

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (36 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($1,083 MSRP vs $213 MSRP).
❌62.5% higher power demand at 130W vs 80W.

Xeon E7340

2007

Why buy it

✅Costs $870 less on MSRP ($213 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Delivers 408.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.7 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($213 MSRP vs $1,083 MSRP).
✅Draws 80W instead of 130W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-970 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (6,544 vs 6,547).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-970 better than Xeon E7340?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E7340 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-970 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-970 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.5% 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, Core i7-970 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 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?

Core i7-970 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E7340 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core i7-970 comes in 408.5% more expensive on MSRP at $1,083 MSRP versus $213 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E7340 is also 408.2% better value on MSRP (30.7 vs 6.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

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

Core i7-970 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2007) and 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-970 vs Xeon E7340 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-970

The Core i7-970 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 July 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 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: 6,547 points. Launch price was $662.

Xeon E7340

The Xeon E7340 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Base frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA604. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 6,544 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-970 is built on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Core i7-970 scores 6,547 against the Xeon E7340's 6,544 — a 0% lead for the Core i7-970. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-970 vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E7340.

Feature	Core i7-970	Xeon E7340
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	—
Boost Clock	3.46 GHz	—
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+33%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	—
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Gulftown (2010−2011)	—
PassMark	6,547	6,544

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-970 uses the LGA1366 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E7340 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-970	Xeon E7340
Socket	LGA1366	PGA604
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	24 GB	—
RAM Channels	3	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	36	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Core i7-970) / not specified (Xeon E7340). Primary use case: Core i7-970 targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-970	Xeon E7340
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-970 was priced at $1083, while the Xeon E7340 came in at $213. On launch pricing ($1083 vs $213), Xeon E7340 was $870 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-970 delivers 6.0 pts/$ vs 30.7 pts/$ for the Xeon E7340 — making the Xeon E7340 the 134.2% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-970	Xeon E7340
MSRP	$1083	$213-80%
Performance per Dollar	6.0	30.7+412%
Release Date	2010	2007

Search Core i7-970 on Amazon

Search Xeon E7340 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.