Xeon E3-1240 vs Xeon E3-1245

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 vs Xeon E3-1245 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 vs Xeon E3-1245: 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

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 80W instead of 95W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $273 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1245 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E3-1245

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,346 vs 5,361).
❌18.8% higher power demand at 95W vs 80W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1240 better than Xeon E3-1245?

Yes. Xeon E3-1240 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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 E3-1240 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E3-1240 is the better buy right now. Xeon E3-1240 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $273 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (19.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E3-1240 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 E3-1240 vs Xeon E3-1245 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1240

The Xeon E3-1240 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 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,361 points. Launch price was $209.

Xeon E3-1245

The Xeon E3-1245 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 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 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: 5,346 points. Launch price was $350.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E3-1240 and Xeon E3-1245 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 versus 3.7 GHz on the Xeon E3-1245 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.3 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). Both are built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture using a 32 nm process. In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1240 scores 5,361 against the Xeon E3-1245's 5,346 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon E3-1240. Both processors carry 8 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E3-1245
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	3.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz	3.3 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,361	5,346