Xeon E3-1270 v2 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 E3-1270 v2 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 E3-1270 v2 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 E3-1270 v2

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 69W instead of 130W, a 61W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 v2 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (6,498 vs 6,523).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 10 MB).

Xeon E5-1620 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $294 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1270 v2 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌88.4% higher power demand at 130W vs 69W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-1620 v2 better than Xeon E3-1270 v2?

Yes. Xeon E5-1620 v2 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% 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 E5-1620 v2 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 6.7% 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 E5-1620 v2 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB).

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

Xeon E5-1620 v2 is the better buy right now. Xeon E5-1620 v2 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $294 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 6.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (22.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E5-1620 v2 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012), 25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB), 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 E3-1270 v2 vs Xeon E5-1620 v2 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1270 v2

The Xeon E3-1270 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 May 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 69 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,498 points. Launch price was $192.

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 E3-1270 v2 and Xeon E5-1620 v2 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E3-1270 v2 versus 3.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 v2 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Xeon E3-1270 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses Ivy Bridge-E (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1270 v2 scores 6,498 against the Xeon E5-1620 v2's 6,523 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon E5-1620 v2. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1270 v2 vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v2.

Feature	Xeon E3-1270 v2	Xeon E5-1620 v2
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz	3.9 GHz
Base Clock	3.5 GHz	3.7 GHz+6%
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	10 MB (total)+25%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Ivy Bridge-E (2013)
PassMark	6,498	6,523
Geekbench 6 Single	672	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	2,032	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1270 v2 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E3-1270 v2	Xeon E5-1620 v2
Socket	LGA1155	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon E3-1270 v2) / not specified (Xeon E5-1620 v2). Primary use case: Xeon E3-1270 v2 targets Productivity. Direct competitor: Xeon E3-1270 v2 rivals Core i7-3770.