M1 vs Xeon E3-1230 v6

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.

M1 vs Xeon E3-1230 v6 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.

M1 vs Xeon E3-1230 v6: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

M1

2020

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon E3-1230 v6

2017

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than M1 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (8,113 vs 8,207).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 16 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is M1 better than Xeon E3-1230 v6?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3-1230 v6 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while M1 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, M1 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 8.6% 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, M1 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 8 MB).

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

M1 still makes the most sense overall. M1 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 8.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

M1 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2017), 100% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

M1 vs Xeon E3-1230 v6 Technical Specifications

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

M1

The M1 is manufactured by Apple. It was released in 10 November 2020 (5 years ago). It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.064 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 5 nm process technology. Passmark benchmark score: 8,207 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E3-1230 v6

The Xeon E3-1230 v6 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 28 March 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 72 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400, DDR3L-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 8,113 points. Launch price was $250.

⚡

Processing Power

The M1 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E3-1230 v6 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the M1 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the M1 versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E3-1230 v6 — a 19.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1230 v6 (base: 2.064 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Xeon E3-1230 v6 is built on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. In PassMark, the M1 scores 8,207 against the Xeon E3-1230 v6's 8,113 — a 1.2% lead for the M1. L3 cache: 16 MB on the M1 vs 8 MB on the Xeon E3-1230 v6.

Feature	M1	Xeon E3-1230 v6
Cores / Threads	8 / 8+100%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	3.9 GHz+22%
Base Clock	2.064 GHz	3.5 GHz+70%
L3 Cache	16 MB+100%	8 MB
L2 Cache	16 MB+1500%	1 MB
Process	5 nm-64%	14 nm
Architecture	—	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)
PassMark	8,207+1%	8,113