Xeon E3-1290 v2 vs Xeon E5-2640

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 E3-1290 v2 vs Xeon E5-2640 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 E3-1290 v2 vs Xeon E5-2640: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E3-1290 v2

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 87W instead of 95W, a 8W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 15 MB).

Xeon E5-2640

2012

Why buy it

✅+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 (6,305 vs 6,354).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1290 v2 better than Xeon E5-2640?

Yes. Xeon E3-1290 v2 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.8% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E3-1290 v2 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.1% 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 E3-1290 v2 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon E3-1290 v2 is the better buy right now. Xeon E3-1290 v2 comes in in basically the same MSRP band at $885 MSRP versus $885 MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 0.8% better value on MSRP (7.2 vs 7.1 PassMark/$), 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 E5-2640 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Xeon E3-1290 v2 vs Xeon E5-2640 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1290 v2

The Xeon E3-1290 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 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 87 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,354 points. Launch price was $885.

Xeon E5-2640

The Xeon E5-2640 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 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3 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: 6,305 points. Launch price was $162.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E3-1290 v2 packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2640 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon E5-2640 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the Xeon E3-1290 v2 versus 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2640 — a 31% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1290 v2 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Xeon E3-1290 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-2640 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1290 v2 scores 6,354 against the Xeon E5-2640's 6,305 — a 0.8% lead for the Xeon E3-1290 v2. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1290 v2 vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2640.

Feature	Xeon E3-1290 v2	Xeon E5-2640
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+37%	3 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+48%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	15360 kB (total)+88%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	6,354	6,305

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1290 v2 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2640 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E3-1290 v2	Xeon E5-2640
Socket	LGA1155	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	384 GB
RAM Channels	—	4
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	40

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Xeon E3-1290 v2) / VT-x, VT-d (Xeon E5-2640). Primary use case: Xeon E5-2640 targets Server.

Feature	Xeon E3-1290 v2	Xeon E5-2640
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E3-1290 v2 was priced at $885, while the Xeon E5-2640 came in at $885. On launch pricing ($885 vs $885), Xeon E5-2640 was $0 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E3-1290 v2 delivers 7.2 pts/$ vs 7.1 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2640 — making the Xeon E3-1290 v2 the 0.8% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E3-1290 v2	Xeon E5-2640
MSRP	$885	$885
Performance per Dollar	7.2+1%	7.1
Release Date	2012	2012

Search Xeon E3-1290 v2 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2640 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.