Xeon E3-1240 v2 vs Xeon W3670

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 E3-1240 v2 vs Xeon W3670 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 E3-1240 v2 vs Xeon W3670: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E3-1240 v2

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 69W instead of 130W, a 61W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,385 vs 6,424).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).

Xeon W3670

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌88.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 69W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1240 v2 better than Xeon W3670?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E3-1240 v2 is ahead with a 1.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W3670 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. Xeon W3670 also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon W3670 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Xeon E3-1240 v2 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon W3670 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E3-1240 v2 comes in in basically the same MSRP band at $250 MSRP versus $250 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon W3670 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.6% better PassMark. Xeon W3670 is also 0.6% better value on MSRP (25.7 vs 25.5 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds 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 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Xeon E3-1240 v2 vs Xeon W3670 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Xeon W3670

The Xeon W3670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,424 points. Launch price was $295.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E3-1240 v2 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon W3670 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon W3670 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 v2 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon W3670 — a 9.4% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1240 v2 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Xeon E3-1240 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon W3670 uses Gulftown (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1240 v2 scores 6,385 against the Xeon W3670's 6,424 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon W3670. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1240 v2 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon W3670.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240 v2	Xeon W3670
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+10%	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz+6%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Gulftown (2010−2011)
PassMark	6,385	6,424

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1240 v2 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon W3670 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240 v2	Xeon W3670
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E3-1240 v2 was priced at $250, while the Xeon W3670 came in at $250. On launch pricing ($250 vs $250), Xeon W3670 was $0 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E3-1240 v2 delivers 25.5 pts/$ vs 25.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W3670 — making the Xeon W3670 the 0.6% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240 v2	Xeon W3670
MSRP	$250	$250
Performance per Dollar	25.5	25.7
Release Date	2012	2010

Search Xeon E3-1240 v2 on Amazon

Search Xeon W3670 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.