Xeon E3-1240 vs Xeon E5-2620

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 E5-2620 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 E5-2620: 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

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $87 less on MSRP ($273 MSRP vs $360 MSRP).
✅Delivers 32.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.6 vs 14.8 PassMark/$ ($273 MSRP vs $360 MSRP).
✅Draws 80W instead of 95W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2620 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 15 MB).

Xeon E5-2620

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+87.5% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 8 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,328 vs 5,361).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 14.8 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($360 MSRP vs $273 MSRP).
❌18.8% higher power demand at 95W vs 80W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1240 better than Xeon E5-2620?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E5-2620 is ahead with a 4.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1240 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. Xeon E5-2620 also has the bigger cache pool with 87.5% larger total L3 cache (15 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 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 E3-1240 is the better buy right now. Xeon E3-1240 comes in $87 cheaper on MSRP at $273 MSRP versus $360 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-2620 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 4.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 32.7% better value on MSRP (19.6 vs 14.8 PassMark/$), 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 E5-2620 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2011) and 87.5% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 8 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Xeon E3-1240 vs Xeon E5-2620 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 E5-2620

The Xeon E5-2620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,328 points. Launch price was $36.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E3-1240 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2620 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon E5-2620 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240 versus 2.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 — a 38.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1240 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Xeon E3-1240 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1240 scores 5,361 against the Xeon E5-2620's 5,328 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E3-1240. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1240 vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2620.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E5-2620
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+48%	2.5 GHz
Base Clock	3.3 GHz+65%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	15360 kB (total)+88%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	5,361	5,328

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1240 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E5-2620
Socket	LGA1155	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	384 GB
RAM Channels	—	4
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	40

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E3-1240 was priced at $273, while the Xeon E5-2620 came in at $360. On launch pricing ($273 vs $360), Xeon E3-1240 was $87 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E3-1240 delivers 19.6 pts/$ vs 14.8 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 — making the Xeon E3-1240 the 28.1% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240	Xeon E5-2620
MSRP	$273-24%	$360
Performance per Dollar	19.6+32%	14.8
Release Date	2011	2012

Search Xeon E3-1240 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2620 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.