Xeon E3-1240 vs Xeon E3-1270

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 E3-1270 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 E3-1270: 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

✅Costs $57 less on MSRP ($273 MSRP vs $330 MSRP).
✅Delivers 20.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.6 vs 16.3 PassMark/$ ($273 MSRP vs $330 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,361 vs 5,376).

Xeon E3-1270

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 16.3 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($330 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1270 better than Xeon E3-1240?

Yes. Xeon E3-1270 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, 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?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E3-1270 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.4% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1270 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 E3-1270 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E3-1240 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E3-1270 comes in 20.9% more expensive on MSRP at $330 MSRP versus $273 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E3-1240 is also 20.5% better value on MSRP (19.6 vs 16.3 PassMark/$), 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 E3-1270 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 E3-1270 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 E3-1270

The Xeon E3-1270 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 3.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 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: 5,376 points. Launch price was $369.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E3-1240 and Xeon E3-1270 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E3-1270 — a 2.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1270 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 3.4 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 E3-1270's 5,376 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon E3-1270. Both processors carry 8 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E3-1270
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz	3.8 GHz+3%
Base Clock	3.3 GHz	3.4 GHz+3%
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	5,376

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA1155 socket with PCIe 2.0.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E3-1270
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E3-1240 was priced at $273, while the Xeon E3-1270 came in at $330. On launch pricing ($273 vs $330), Xeon E3-1240 was $57 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E3-1240 delivers 19.6 pts/$ vs 16.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E3-1270 — making the Xeon E3-1240 the 18.6% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E3-1270
MSRP	$273-17%	$330
Performance per Dollar	19.6+20%	16.3
Release Date	2011	2011

Search Xeon E3-1240 on Amazon

Search Xeon E3-1270 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.