E2-6110 vs Xeon 5140

E2-6110 vs Xeon 5140 Performance Spectrum

E2-6110

4 / 4

1,234

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 5140

2 / 2

1,235

+0.1%

About PassMark

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.

E2-6110 vs Xeon 5140 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.

E2-6110 vs Xeon 5140: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

E2-6110

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 65W, a 50W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,234 vs 1,235).

Xeon 5140

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌333.3% higher power demand at 65W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 5140 better than E2-6110?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5140 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while E2-6110 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon 5140 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Xeon 5140 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Xeon 5140 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon 5140 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

E2-6110 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2006). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

E2-6110 vs Xeon 5140 Technical Specifications

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

E2-6110

The E2-6110 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Beema (2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.5 GHz. L2 cache: 2048 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,234 points. Launch price was $50.

Xeon 5140

The Xeon 5140 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Junho 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Woodcrest (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.33 GHz, with boost up to 2.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,235 points. Launch price was $15.

⚡

Processing Power

The E2-6110 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon 5140 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the E2-6110 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.5 GHz on the E2-6110 versus 2.33 GHz on the Xeon 5140 — a 43.3% clock advantage for the Xeon 5140. The E2-6110 uses the Beema (2014) architecture (28 nm), while the Xeon 5140 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the E2-6110 scores 1,234 against the Xeon 5140's 1,235 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon 5140.

Feature	E2-6110	Xeon 5140
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.5 GHz	2.33 GHz+55%
Base Clock	—	2.33 GHz
L3 Cache	—	0 kB
L2 Cache	2048 kB	4 MB+100%
Process	28 nm-57%	65 nm
Architecture	Beema (2014)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,234	1,235