Opteron 6276 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2

Opteron 6276 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2 Performance Spectrum

Opteron 6276

16 / 16

6,348

0.0%

Ryzen Embedded V1202B

Ryzen Embedded R1606G

Athlon Gold 7220U

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

+0.6%

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.

Opteron 6276 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.

Opteron 6276 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.

Opteron 6276

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,348 vs 6,385).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 8.1 vs 25.5 PassMark/$ ($788 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).
❌66.7% higher power demand at 115W vs 69W.

Xeon E3-1240 v2

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $538 less on MSRP ($250 MSRP vs $788 MSRP).
✅Delivers 217.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.5 vs 8.1 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $788 MSRP).
✅Draws 69W instead of 115W, a 46W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Opteron 6276 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1240 v2 better than Opteron 6276?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Opteron 6276 is ahead with a 3.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1240 v2 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark.

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 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E3-1240 v2 is the better buy right now. Xeon E3-1240 v2 comes in $538 cheaper on MSRP at $250 MSRP versus $788 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The compromise is that Opteron 6276 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 3.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 217.0% better value on MSRP (25.5 vs 8.1 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon E3-1240 v2 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 16/16. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Opteron 6276 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2 Technical Specifications

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

Opteron 6276

The Opteron 6276 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 November 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Interlagos (2011−2012) architecture. It features 16 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per module). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: G34. Thermal design power (TDP): 115 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,348 points. Launch price was $119.

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 Opteron 6276 packs 16 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Opteron 6276 has 12 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Opteron 6276 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 v2 — a 17.1% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1240 v2 (base: 2.3 GHz vs 3.4 GHz). The Opteron 6276 uses the Interlagos (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Opteron 6276 scores 6,348 against the Xeon E3-1240 v2's 6,385 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E3-1240 v2. Both processors carry 8 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Opteron 6276	Xeon E3-1240 v2
Cores / Threads	16 / 16+300%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	3.8 GHz+19%
Base Clock	2.3 GHz	3.4 GHz+48%
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB (per module)+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Interlagos (2011−2012)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	6,348	6,385

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Opteron 6276 uses the G34 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Opteron 6276	Xeon E3-1240 v2
Socket	G34	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Opteron 6276 was priced at $788, while the Xeon E3-1240 v2 came in at $250. On launch pricing ($788 vs $250), Xeon E3-1240 v2 was $538 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Opteron 6276 delivers 8.1 pts/$ vs 25.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E3-1240 v2 — making the Xeon E3-1240 v2 the 104.1% better value option.

Feature	Opteron 6276	Xeon E3-1240 v2
MSRP	$788	$250-68%
Performance per Dollar	8.1	25.5+215%
Release Date	2011	2012

Search Opteron 6276 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.