Xeon E5-2608L v4 vs Xeon E5-2667

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 E5-2608L v4 vs Xeon E5-2667 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 E5-2608L v4 vs Xeon E5-2667: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E5-2608L v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 15 MB).
✅Costs $1,189 less on MSRP ($363 MSRP vs $1,552 MSRP).
✅Delivers 327.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 20.5 vs 4.8 PassMark/$ ($363 MSRP vs $1,552 MSRP).
✅Draws 50W instead of 130W, a 80W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon E5-2667

2012

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2608L v4 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,442 vs 7,447).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (15 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.8 vs 20.5 PassMark/$ ($1,552 MSRP vs $363 MSRP).
❌160% higher power demand at 130W vs 50W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2608L v4 better than Xeon E5-2667?

Yes. Xeon E5-2608L v4 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% 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 E5-2608L v4 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.5% 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 E5-2608L v4 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 15 MB).

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

Xeon E5-2608L v4 is the better buy right now. Xeon E5-2608L v4 comes in $1,189 cheaper on MSRP at $363 MSRP versus $1,552 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 327.8% better value on MSRP (20.5 vs 4.8 PassMark/$), 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 E5-2608L v4 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2012), 33.3% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 15 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon E5-2608L v4 vs Xeon E5-2667 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E5-2608L v4

The Xeon E5-2608L v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 50 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 7,447 points. Launch price was $363.

Xeon E5-2667

The Xeon E5-2667 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 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 7,442 points. Launch price was $714.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-2608L v4 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-2667 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon E5-2608L v4 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Xeon E5-2608L v4 versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2667 — a 74.5% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-2667. The Xeon E5-2608L v4 uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2667 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-2608L v4 scores 7,447 against the Xeon E5-2667's 7,442 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon E5-2608L v4. L3 cache: 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2608L v4 vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2667.

Feature	Xeon E5-2608L v4	Xeon E5-2667
Cores / Threads	8 / 16+33%	6 / 12
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	3.5 GHz+119%
Base Clock	—	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	20 MB+33%	15360 kB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB+700%	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	7,447	7,442

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Xeon E5-2608L v4) / true (Xeon E5-2667). Primary use case: Xeon E5-2667 targets Server.

Feature	Xeon E5-2608L v4	Xeon E5-2667
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	true
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E5-2608L v4 was priced at $363, while the Xeon E5-2667 came in at $1552. On launch pricing ($363 vs $1552), Xeon E5-2608L v4 was $1189 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E5-2608L v4 delivers 20.5 pts/$ vs 4.8 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2667 — making the Xeon E5-2608L v4 the 124.2% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E5-2608L v4	Xeon E5-2667
MSRP	$363-77%	$1552
Performance per Dollar	20.5+327%	4.8
Release Date	2016	2012

Search Xeon E5-2608L v4 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2667 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.