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.

N200 vs Xeon L5640 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.

N200 vs Xeon L5640: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

N200

2023

Why buy it

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $803 less on MSRP ($193 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
✅Delivers 423.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 24.5 vs 4.7 PassMark/$ ($193 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
✅Draws 6W instead of 60W, a 54W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA1264 with DDR5 support instead of LGA1366 and older memory support.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon L5640 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5640, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.

Xeon L5640

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,659 vs 4,729).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.7 vs 24.5 PassMark/$ ($996 MSRP vs $193 MSRP).
❌900% higher power demand at 60W vs 6W.
❌Older platform position on LGA1366, while N200 moves to FCBGA1264 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is N200 better than Xeon L5640?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon L5640 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while N200 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, N200 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

N200 is the better buy right now. N200 comes in $803 cheaper on MSRP at $193 MSRP versus $996 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon L5640 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 12.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 423.8% better value on MSRP (24.5 vs 4.7 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

N200 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2010), a healthier platform with FCBGA1264 and DDR5 instead of LGA1366, and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 6/12. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

N200 vs Xeon L5640 Technical Specifications

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

N200

The N200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 January 2023 (2 years ago). It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB Intel® Smart Cache. Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1264. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200, DDR5-4800, LPDDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 4,729 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon L5640

The Xeon L5640 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 60 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,659 points. Launch price was $200.

⚡

Processing Power

The N200 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon L5640 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon L5640 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the N200 versus 2.8 GHz on the Xeon L5640 — a 27.7% clock advantage for the N200. The Xeon L5640 is built on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the N200 scores 4,729 against the Xeon L5640's 4,659 — a 1.5% lead for the N200. L3 cache: 6 MB Intel® Smart Cache on the N200 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon L5640.

Feature	N200	Xeon L5640
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+32%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	—	2.26 GHz
L3 Cache	6 MB Intel® Smart Cache	12 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	—	256 kB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm-78%	32 nm
Architecture	—	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	4,729+2%	4,659

🧠

Memory & Platform

The N200 uses the FCBGA1264 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon L5640 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	N200	Xeon L5640
Socket	FCBGA1264	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 5.0+25%
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3 1333 MHz
Max RAM Capacity	—	288 GB
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (N200) / true (Xeon L5640). Primary use case: Xeon L5640 targets Server Low Power.

Feature	N200	Xeon L5640
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	true
Target Use	—	Server Low Power

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the N200 was priced at $193, while the Xeon L5640 came in at $996. On launch pricing ($193 vs $996), N200 was $803 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the N200 delivers 24.5 pts/$ vs 4.7 pts/$ for the Xeon L5640 — making the N200 the 135.9% better value option.

Feature	N200	Xeon L5640
MSRP	$193-81%	$996
Performance per Dollar	24.5+421%	4.7
Release Date	2023	2010

Search N200 on Amazon

Search Xeon L5640 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.