Xeon E3-1240 v3 vs Xeon E5-1620 v3

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 v3 vs Xeon E5-1620 v3 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 v3 vs Xeon E5-1620 v3: 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 v3

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 80W instead of 140W, a 60W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 v3 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 10 MB).
❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.

Xeon E5-1620 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,959 vs 7,001).
❌Launch MSRP is still $294 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1240 v3 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌75% higher power demand at 140W vs 80W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-1620 v3 better than Xeon E3-1240 v3?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E5-1620 v3 is ahead with a 4.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1240 v3 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. Xeon E5-1620 v3 also has the bigger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1240 v3 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 E5-1620 v3 is the better buy right now. Xeon E5-1620 v3 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $294 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Xeon E3-1240 v3 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.6% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (23.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E5-1620 v3 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013), 25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB), and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Xeon E3-1240 v3 vs Xeon E5-1620 v3 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1240 v3

The Xeon E3-1240 v3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 June 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell-WS (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 8192 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 7,001 points. Launch price was $300.

Xeon E5-1620 v3

The Xeon E5-1620 v3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1333, DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 6,959 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E3-1240 v3 and Xeon E5-1620 v3 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 v3 versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 v3 — a 5.4% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1240 v3 (base: 3.4 GHz vs 3.5 GHz). The Xeon E3-1240 v3 uses the Haswell-WS (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1240 v3 scores 7,001 against the Xeon E5-1620 v3's 6,959 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E3-1240 v3. L3 cache: 8192 kB (total) on the Xeon E3-1240 v3 vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v3.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240 v3	Xeon E5-1620 v3
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+6%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.4 GHz	3.5 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	8192 kB (total)	10 MB (total)+25%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Haswell-WS (2013−2014)	Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
PassMark	7,001	6,959

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1240 v3 uses the LGA1150 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.