Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E7340

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 E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E7340 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 E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E7340: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E5-1620 v2

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.8% 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 6,544).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 22.2 vs 30.7 PassMark/$ ($294 MSRP vs $213 MSRP).
❌62.5% higher power demand at 130W vs 80W.

Xeon E7340

2007

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $81 less on MSRP ($213 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).
✅Delivers 38.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 30.7 vs 22.2 PassMark/$ ($213 MSRP vs $294 MSRP).
✅Draws 80W instead of 130W, a 50W 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).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E7340 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 11.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E7340 pulls ahead with 0.3% 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 E7340 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark.

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

Xeon E7340 is the better buy right now. Xeon E7340 comes in $81 cheaper on MSRP at $213 MSRP versus $294 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-1620 v2 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 11.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 38.5% better value on MSRP (30.7 vs 22.2 PassMark/$), 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 2007) and 25% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Xeon E7340 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Xeon E7340

The Xeon E7340 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Base frequency: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA604. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 6,544 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-1620 v2 is built on the Ivy Bridge-E (2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Xeon E5-1620 v2 scores 6,523 against the Xeon E7340's 6,544 — a 0.3% lead for the Xeon E7340. L3 cache: 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E7340.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v2	Xeon E7340
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	—
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz	—
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+54%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	10 MB (total)+25%	8 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	—
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge-E (2013)	—
PassMark	6,523	6,544

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E5-1620 v2 uses the LGA2011 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E7340 uses PGA604 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v2	Xeon E7340
Socket	LGA2011	PGA604
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E5-1620 v2 was priced at $294, while the Xeon E7340 came in at $213. On launch pricing ($294 vs $213), Xeon E7340 was $81 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E5-1620 v2 delivers 22.2 pts/$ vs 30.7 pts/$ for the Xeon E7340 — making the Xeon E7340 the 32.3% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E5-1620 v2	Xeon E7340
MSRP	$294	$213-28%
Performance per Dollar	22.2	30.7+38%
Release Date	2013	2007

Search Xeon E5-1620 v2 on Amazon

Search Xeon E7340 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.