Xeon E3-1240L v5 vs Xeon E5-1620 v2

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 E3-1240L v5 vs Xeon E5-1620 v2 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 E3-1240L v5 vs Xeon E5-1620 v2: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Xeon E3-1240L v5

2015

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 25W instead of 130W, a 105W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 v2 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 10 MB).

Xeon E5-1620 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,523 vs 6,547).
❌Launch MSRP is still $294 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1240L v5 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌420% higher power demand at 130W vs 25W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1240L v5 better than Xeon E5-1620 v2?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E5-1620 v2 is ahead with a 12.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1240L v5 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark. Xeon E5-1620 v2 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 E3-1240L v5 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E3-1240L v5 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5-1620 v2 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E3-1240L v5 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $294 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-1620 v2 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 12.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E5-1620 v2 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (22.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E3-1240L v5 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2013) and 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 E3-1240L v5 vs Xeon E5-1620 v2 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1240L v5

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake-DT (2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1866/2133, DDR3L-1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 6,547 points. Launch price was $278.

Xeon E5-1620 v2

The Xeon E5-1620 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,523 points. Launch price was $315.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E3-1240L v5 and Xeon E5-1620 v2 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Xeon E3-1240L v5 versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 v2 — a 19.7% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1620 v2 (base: 2.1 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses the Skylake-DT (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses Ivy Bridge-E (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 scores 6,547 against the Xeon E5-1620 v2's 6,523 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon E3-1240L v5. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1240L v5 vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v2.

Feature	Xeon E3-1240L v5	Xeon E5-1620 v2
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.2 GHz	3.9 GHz+22%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	3.7 GHz+76%
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	10 MB (total)+25%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Skylake-DT (2015)	Ivy Bridge-E (2013)
PassMark	6,547	6,523

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.