Xeon E5-2658 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 E5-2658 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 E5-2658 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 E5-2658

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +20.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+33.3% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 15 MB).
✅Draws 95W instead of 130W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,232 vs 6,298).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.6 vs 70.0 PassMark/$ ($400 MSRP vs $90 MSRP).

Xeon E5-4617

2012

Why buy it

✅+1.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $310 less on MSRP ($90 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
✅Delivers 349.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 70.0 vs 15.6 PassMark/$ ($90 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2658 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (15 MB vs 20 MB).
❌36.8% higher power demand at 130W vs 95W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-4617 better than Xeon E5-2658?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon E5-2658 is ahead with a 20.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-4617 pulls ahead with 1.1% better PassMark. Xeon E5-2658 also has the bigger cache pool with 33.3% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 15 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-4617 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

Xeon E5-4617 is the better buy right now. Xeon E5-4617 comes in $310 cheaper on MSRP at $90 MSRP versus $400 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-2658 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 20.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 349.2% better value on MSRP (70.0 vs 15.6 PassMark/$), 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 E5-4617 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Xeon E5-2658 vs Xeon E5-4617 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E5-2658

The Xeon E5-2658 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 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 20480 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: 6,232 points. Launch price was $1,462.

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 E5-2658 packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-4617 offers 6 cores / 6 threads — the Xeon E5-2658 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Xeon E5-2658 versus 3.4 GHz on the Xeon E5-4617 — a 34.5% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-4617 (base: 2.1 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). Both are built on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture using a 32 nm process. In PassMark, the Xeon E5-2658 scores 6,232 against the Xeon E5-4617's 6,298 — a 1.1% lead for the Xeon E5-4617. L3 cache: 20480 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2658 vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-4617.

Feature	Xeon E5-2658	Xeon E5-4617
Cores / Threads	8 / 16+33%	6 / 6
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	3.4 GHz+42%
Base Clock	2.1 GHz	2.9 GHz+38%
L3 Cache	20480 kB (total)+33%	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	6,232	6,298+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the LGA2011 socket with PCIe 5.0.

Feature	Xeon E5-2658	Xeon E5-4617
Socket	LGA2011	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+150%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E5-2658 was priced at $400, while the Xeon E5-4617 came in at $90. On launch pricing ($400 vs $90), Xeon E5-4617 was $310 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E5-2658 delivers 15.6 pts/$ vs 70.0 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-4617 — making the Xeon E5-4617 the 127.2% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E5-2658	Xeon E5-4617
MSRP	$400	$90-78%
Performance per Dollar	15.6	70.0+349%
Release Date	2012	2012

Search Xeon E5-2658 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.