M1 vs Xeon E3-1240 v5

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 E3-1240 v5 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 E3-1240 v5: 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: +7.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (8,207 vs 8,258).

Xeon E3-1240 v5

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1240 v5 better than M1?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E3-1240 v5 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 streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E3-1240 v5 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon E3-1240 v5 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark.

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 2015) and 100% larger total L3 cache (16 MB vs 8 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

M1 vs Xeon E3-1240 v5 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 E3-1240 v5

The Xeon E3-1240 v5 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake-DT (2015) 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 (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151, LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1866/2133, DDR3L-1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 8,258 points. Launch price was $282.

⚡

Processing Power

The M1 packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 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 E3-1240 v5 — a 19.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1240 v5 (base: 2.064 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Xeon E3-1240 v5 is built on the Skylake-DT (2015) architecture. In PassMark, the M1 scores 8,207 against the Xeon E3-1240 v5's 8,258 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E3-1240 v5. L3 cache: 16 MB on the M1 vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1240 v5.

Feature	M1	Xeon E3-1240 v5
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 (total)
L2 Cache	16 MB+6300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	5 nm-64%	14 nm
Architecture	—	Skylake-DT (2015)
PassMark	8,207	8,258