Xeon E5-2640 v4 vs Xeon E5-2673 v2

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 E5-2640 v4 vs Xeon E5-2673 v2 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 E5-2640 v4 vs Xeon E5-2673 v2: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E5-2640 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 90W instead of 110W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon E5-2673 v2

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (12,331 vs 12,470).
❌22.2% higher power demand at 110W vs 90W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2640 v4 better than Xeon E5-2673 v2?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E5-2673 v2 is ahead with a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2640 v4 pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2640 v4 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 20 threads.

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

Xeon E5-2640 v4 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon E5-2640 v4 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.1% better PassMark.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon E5-2640 v4 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 20 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon E5-2640 v4 vs Xeon E5-2673 v2 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E5-2640 v4

The Xeon E5-2640 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 10 cores and 20 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 25 MB. L2 cache: 2.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 90 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 12,470 points. Launch price was $939.

Xeon E5-2673 v2

The Xeon E5-2673 v2 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 25 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 110 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600, DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 12,331 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-2640 v4 packs 10 cores / 20 threads, while the Xeon E5-2673 v2 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E5-2640 v4 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Xeon E5-2640 v4 versus 4 GHz on the Xeon E5-2673 v2 — a 16.2% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-2673 v2 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz). The Xeon E5-2640 v4 is built on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. In PassMark, the Xeon E5-2640 v4 scores 12,470 against the Xeon E5-2673 v2's 12,331 — a 1.1% lead for the Xeon E5-2640 v4. Both processors carry 25 MB of L3 cache.

Feature	Xeon E5-2640 v4	Xeon E5-2673 v2
Cores / Threads	10 / 20+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz	4 GHz+18%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.3 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	25 MB	25 MB
L2 Cache	2.5 MB	—
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Broadwell (2015−2019)	—
PassMark	12,470+1%	12,331