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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +146.5% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Delivers 90.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon E3-1240 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌
41% HIGHER MSRP
$385 MSRPvs$273 MSRP
❌18.8% higher power demand at 95W vs 80W.

Xeon E3-1240

2011

Why buy it

✅Costs $112 less on MSRP ($273 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 80W instead of 95W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,361 vs 14,397).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.6 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($273 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-9700K

2018

Xeon E3-1240

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +146.5% higher average FPS across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Delivers 90.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($385 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics 630, while Xeon E3-1240 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Costs $112 less on MSRP ($273 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
✅Draws 80W instead of 95W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌
41% HIGHER MSRP
$385 MSRPvs$273 MSRP
❌18.8% higher power demand at 95W vs 80W.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i7-9700K across 5 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,361 vs 14,397).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.6 vs 37.4 PassMark/$ ($273 MSRP vs $385 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-9700K can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-9700K better than Xeon E3-1240?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E3-1240 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-9700K is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-9700K is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 146.5% more average FPS across 5 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-9700K is the better fit. You are getting 168.6% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads. It also carries 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 i7-9700K is the smarter buy today. Core i7-9700K is 41.0% more expensive on MSRP at $385 MSRP versus $273 MSRP, and it gives you a 146.5% average FPS lead across 5 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 90.4% better value on MSRP (37.4 vs 19.6 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core i7-9700K is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2018 vs 2011), 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core i7-9700K Benchmark Check

Xeon E3-1240 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E3-1240
1080p
low	308 FPS	134 FPS
medium	278 FPS	134 FPS
high	231 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	182 FPS	89 FPS
1440p
low	270 FPS	134 FPS
medium	221 FPS	115 FPS
high	178 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	143 FPS	73 FPS
4K
low	170 FPS	63 FPS
medium	140 FPS	56 FPS
high	108 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	95 FPS	35 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E3-1240

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E3-1240
1080p
low	360 FPS	134 FPS
medium	321 FPS	134 FPS
high	291 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	259 FPS	122 FPS
1440p
low	324 FPS	134 FPS
medium	282 FPS	134 FPS
high	258 FPS	133 FPS
ultra	225 FPS	109 FPS
4K
low	249 FPS	129 FPS
medium	221 FPS	114 FPS
high	208 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	179 FPS	67 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E3-1240

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E3-1240
1080p
low	360 FPS	134 FPS
medium	360 FPS	134 FPS
high	360 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	134 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	134 FPS
medium	360 FPS	134 FPS
high	360 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	134 FPS
medium	360 FPS	134 FPS
high	360 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	134 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E3-1240

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E3-1240
1080p
low	360 FPS	134 FPS
medium	360 FPS	134 FPS
high	360 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	134 FPS
1440p
low	360 FPS	134 FPS
medium	360 FPS	134 FPS
high	360 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	360 FPS	134 FPS
medium	360 FPS	134 FPS
high	360 FPS	134 FPS
ultra	360 FPS	134 FPS

Open Core i7-9700K Open Xeon E3-1240

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i7-9700K and Xeon E3-1240

Core i7-9700K

The Core i7-9700K is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2018 (7 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 14,397 points. Launch price was $374.

Xeon E3-1240

The Xeon E3-1240 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 April 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,361 points. Launch price was $209.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-9700K packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E3-1240 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Core i7-9700K has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core i7-9700K versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 — a 27.9% clock advantage for the Core i7-9700K (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Core i7-9700K uses the Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E3-1240 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-9700K scores 14,397 against the Xeon E3-1240's 5,361 — a 91.5% lead for the Core i7-9700K. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core i7-9700K vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1240.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E3-1240
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+100%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz+32%	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz+9%	3.3 GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	14,397+169%	5,361

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E3-1240 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E3-1240
Socket	LGA1151	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2666	—
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i7-9700K) / not specified (Xeon E3-1240). The Core i7-9700K includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Xeon E3-1240 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-9700K targets Desktop.

Feature	Core i7-9700K	Xeon E3-1240
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630	—
Unlocked	Yes	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i7-9700K launched at $385 MSRP, while the Xeon E3-1240 debuted at $273. On MSRP ($385 vs $273), the Xeon E3-1240 is $112 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-9700K delivers 37.4 pts/$ vs 19.6 pts/$ for the Xeon E3-1240 — making the Core i7-9700K the 62.3% better value option.