Xeon E3-1235 vs Xeon X5672

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.

Xeon E3-1235 vs Xeon X5672 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.

Xeon E3-1235 vs Xeon X5672: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E3-1235

2011

Why buy it

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $60 less on MSRP ($240 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 26.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 21.3 vs 16.8 PassMark/$ ($240 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).

Xeon X5672

2011

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,036 vs 5,112).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.8 vs 21.3 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $240 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1235 better than Xeon X5672?

Yes. Xeon E3-1235 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1235 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E3-1235 is the better buy right now. Xeon E3-1235 comes in $60 cheaper on MSRP at $240 MSRP versus $300 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 26.9% better value on MSRP (21.3 vs 16.8 PassMark/$), 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 E3-1235 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 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.

Xeon E3-1235 vs Xeon X5672 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1235

The Xeon E3-1235 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 April 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,112 points. Launch price was $287.

Xeon X5672

The Xeon X5672 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,036 points. Launch price was $115.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E3-1235 and Xeon X5672 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.6 GHz on the Xeon E3-1235 versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon X5672 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.2 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Xeon E3-1235 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5672 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1235 scores 5,112 against the Xeon X5672's 5,036 — a 1.5% lead for the Xeon E3-1235. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1235 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon X5672.

Feature	Xeon E3-1235	Xeon X5672
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.6 GHz	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.2 GHz	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	5,112+2%	5,036

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1235 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X5672 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E3-1235	Xeon X5672
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
RAM Channels	—	3
ECC Support	—	Yes

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Xeon E3-1235) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5672). Primary use case: Xeon X5672 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5672 rivals Core i7-980X.

Feature	Xeon E3-1235	Xeon X5672
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d, EPT
Target Use	—	Workstation

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E3-1235 was priced at $240, while the Xeon X5672 came in at $300. On launch pricing ($240 vs $300), Xeon E3-1235 was $60 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E3-1235 delivers 21.3 pts/$ vs 16.8 pts/$ for the Xeon X5672 — making the Xeon E3-1235 the 23.7% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E3-1235	Xeon X5672
MSRP	$240-20%	$300
Performance per Dollar	21.3+27%	16.8
Release Date	2011	2011

Search Xeon E3-1235 on Amazon

Search Xeon X5672 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.