Xeon E3-1240 vs Xeon E5-2609 v4

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 E5-2609 v4 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 E5-2609 v4: 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

✅Draws 80W instead of 85W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2609 v4 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (5,361 vs 5,418).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $273 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2609 v4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5-2609 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2609 v4 better than Xeon E3-1240?

Yes. Xeon E5-2609 v4 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 11.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.1% 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 E5-2609 v4 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 11.7% 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 E5-2609 v4 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Xeon E5-2609 v4 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E3-1240 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E5-2609 v4 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $273 MSRP, and it still gives you a 11.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E3-1240 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (19.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E5-2609 v4 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2011), 150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 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 E5-2609 v4 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 E5-2609 v4

The Xeon E5-2609 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 5,418 points. Launch price was $306.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E3-1240 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2609 v4 offers 8 cores / 8 threads — the Xeon E5-2609 v4 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 versus 1.7 GHz on the Xeon E5-2609 v4 — a 74.1% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1240 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). The Xeon E3-1240 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5-2609 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1240 scores 5,361 against the Xeon E5-2609 v4's 5,418 — a 1.1% lead for the Xeon E5-2609 v4. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1240 vs 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2609 v4.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E5-2609 v4
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	8 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+118%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz+94%	1.7 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	20 MB+150%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	2 MB+700%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	5,361	5,418+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1240 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5-2609 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.