Xeon E3-1275 v6 vs Xeon E3-1280 v6

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 E3-1275 v6 vs Xeon E3-1280 v6 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 E3-1275 v6 vs Xeon E3-1280 v6: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E3-1275 v6

2017

Why buy it

✅+1.2% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $499 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1280 v6 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E3-1280 v6

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 72W instead of 73W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (9,093 vs 9,202).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1275 v6 better than Xeon E3-1280 v6?

Yes. Xeon E3-1275 v6 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.2% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1275 v6 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E3-1275 v6 is the better buy right now. Xeon E3-1275 v6 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $499 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (18.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E3-1275 v6 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 E3-1275 v6 vs Xeon E3-1280 v6 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1275 v6

The Xeon E3-1275 v6 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 28 March 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.8 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400, DDR3L-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 9,202 points. Launch price was $339.

Xeon E3-1280 v6

The Xeon E3-1280 v6 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 28 March 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.9 GHz, with boost up to 4.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 72 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400, DDR3L-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 9,093 points. Launch price was $612.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E3-1275 v6 and Xeon E3-1280 v6 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4.2 GHz on the Xeon E3-1275 v6 versus 4.2 GHz on the Xeon E3-1280 v6 — identical boost frequencies (base: 3.8 GHz vs 3.9 GHz). Both are built on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture using a 14 nm process. In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1275 v6 scores 9,202 against the Xeon E3-1280 v6's 9,093 — a 1.2% lead for the Xeon E3-1275 v6. Both processors carry 8 MB of L3 cache.

Feature	Xeon E3-1275 v6	Xeon E3-1280 v6
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.2 GHz	4.2 GHz
Base Clock	3.8 GHz	3.9 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	8 MB	8 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)
PassMark	9,202+1%	9,093