Xeon E5-2640 vs Xeon E5-4617

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 vs Xeon E5-4617 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 vs Xeon E5-4617: 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

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +19.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 95W instead of 130W, a 35W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 70.0 PassMark/$ ($885 MSRP vs $90 MSRP).

Xeon E5-4617

2012

Why buy it

✅Costs $795 less on MSRP ($90 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).
✅Delivers 882.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 70.0 vs 7.1 PassMark/$ ($90 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2640 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (6,298 vs 6,305).
❌36.8% higher power demand at 130W vs 95W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2640 better than Xeon E5-4617?

Yes. Xeon E5-2640 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 19.8% 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 E5-2640 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 19.8% 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 E5-2640 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads.

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

Xeon E5-2640 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5-4617 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E5-2640 comes in 883.3% more expensive on MSRP at $885 MSRP versus $90 MSRP, and it still gives you a 19.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E5-4617 is also 882.2% better value on MSRP (70.0 vs 7.1 PassMark/$), 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 E5-2640 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 6/6. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon E5-2640 vs Xeon E5-4617 Technical Specifications

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

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.

Xeon E5-4617

The Xeon E5-4617 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 14 May 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 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: 6,298 points. Launch price was $90.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon E5-2640 packs 6 cores / 12 threads, matching the Xeon E5-4617's 6 cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2640 versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon E5-4617 — a 12.5% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-4617 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). Both are built on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture using a 32 nm process. In PassMark, the Xeon E5-2640 scores 6,305 against the Xeon E5-4617's 6,298 — a 0.1% lead for the Xeon E5-2640. Both processors carry 15360 kB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Xeon E5-2640	Xeon E5-4617
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 6
Boost Clock	3 GHz	3.4 GHz+13%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	2.9 GHz+16%
L3 Cache	15360 kB (total)	15360 kB (total)
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	6,305	6,298

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA2011 socket with PCIe 5.0.

Feature	Xeon E5-2640	Xeon E5-4617
Socket	LGA2011	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+150%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	384 GB	—
RAM Channels	4	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	40	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Xeon E5-2640) / not specified (Xeon E5-4617). Primary use case: Xeon E5-2640 targets Server.

Feature	Xeon E5-2640	Xeon E5-4617
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	—
Target Use	Server	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E5-2640 was priced at $885, while the Xeon E5-4617 came in at $90. On launch pricing ($885 vs $90), Xeon E5-4617 was $795 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E5-2640 delivers 7.1 pts/$ vs 70.0 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-4617 — making the Xeon E5-4617 the 163% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E5-2640	Xeon E5-4617
MSRP	$885	$90-90%
Performance per Dollar	7.1	70.0+886%
Release Date	2012	2012

Search Xeon E5-2640 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-4617 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.