FX-9370 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2

FX-9370 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2 Performance Spectrum

FX-9370

8 / 8

6,374

0.0%

Ryzen Embedded V1202B

Ryzen Embedded R1606G

FX-8320E

Ryzen 3 PRO 2300U

Ryzen Threadripper 2920X

Ryzen 9 5900XT

Ryzen Threadripper 3970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7965WX

Xeon E3-1240 v2

4 / 8

6,385

+0.2%

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.

FX-9370 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2 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.

FX-9370 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

FX-9370

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $208 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
✅Delivers 494.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 151.8 vs 25.5 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,374 vs 6,385).
❌218.8% higher power demand at 220W vs 69W.

Xeon E3-1240 v2

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 69W instead of 220W, a 151W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than FX-9370 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 25.5 vs 151.8 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is FX-9370 better than Xeon E3-1240 v2?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3-1240 v2 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while FX-9370 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 E3-1240 v2 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

FX-9370 is the better buy right now. FX-9370 comes in $208 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $250 MSRP, and it still gives you a 17.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon E3-1240 v2 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.2% better PassMark. It is also 494.2% better value on MSRP (151.8 vs 25.5 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

FX-9370 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

FX-9370 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2 Technical Specifications

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

FX-9370

The FX-9370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 July 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 4.4 GHz, with boost up to 4.7 GHz. L2 cache: 8192 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: AM3+. Thermal design power (TDP): 220 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,374 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E3-1240 v2

The Xeon E3-1240 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 May 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 69 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,385 points. Launch price was $304.

⚡

Processing Power

The FX-9370 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the FX-9370 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.7 GHz on the FX-9370 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 v2 — a 21.2% clock advantage for the FX-9370 (base: 4.4 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The FX-9370 uses the Vishera (2012−2015) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the FX-9370 scores 6,374 against the Xeon E3-1240 v2's 6,385 — a 0.2% lead for the Xeon E3-1240 v2.

Feature	FX-9370	Xeon E3-1240 v2
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+100%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.7 GHz+24%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	4.4 GHz+29%	3.4 GHz
L3 Cache	—	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	8192 kB+3100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Vishera (2012−2015)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	6,374	6,385

🧠

Memory & Platform

The FX-9370 uses the AM3+ socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	FX-9370	Xeon E3-1240 v2
Socket	AM3+	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the FX-9370 was priced at $42, while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 came in at $250. On launch pricing ($42 vs $250), FX-9370 was $208 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the FX-9370 delivers 151.8 pts/$ vs 25.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E3-1240 v2 — making the FX-9370 the 142.4% better value option.

Feature	FX-9370	Xeon E3-1240 v2
MSRP	$42-83%	$250
Performance per Dollar	151.8+495%	25.5
Release Date	2013	2012

Search FX-9370 on Amazon

Search Xeon E3-1240 v2 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.