Xeon E3-1290 vs Xeon X5687

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 vs Xeon X5687 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 vs Xeon X5687: 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

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.8% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 95W instead of 130W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X5687 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).

Xeon X5687

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +3.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (36 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,386 vs 5,429).
❌Launch MSRP is still $552 MSRP, while Xeon E3-1290 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌36.8% higher power demand at 130W vs 95W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E3-1290 better than Xeon X5687?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon X5687 is ahead with a 3.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1290 pulls ahead with 0.8% better PassMark. Xeon X5687 also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E3-1290 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 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon X5687 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E3-1290 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $552 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.8% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon X5687 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 3.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon X5687 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (9.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E3-1290 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 E3-1290 vs Xeon X5687 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E3-1290

The Xeon E3-1290 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 May 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,429 points. Launch price was $885.

Xeon X5687

The Xeon X5687 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 February 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.86 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,386 points. Launch price was $121.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E3-1290 and Xeon X5687 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the Xeon E3-1290 versus 3.86 GHz on the Xeon X5687 — a 3.6% clock advantage for the Xeon E3-1290 (base: 3.6 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Xeon E3-1290 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X5687 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E3-1290 scores 5,429 against the Xeon X5687's 5,386 — a 0.8% lead for the Xeon E3-1290. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E3-1290 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon X5687.

Feature	Xeon E3-1290	Xeon X5687
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4 GHz+4%	3.86 GHz
Base Clock	3.6 GHz	3.6 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	5,429	5,386
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,643
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	5,386

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E3-1290 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X5687 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.