Xeon E5-4610 vs Xeon W3670

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 E5-4610 vs Xeon W3670 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 E5-4610 vs Xeon W3670: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E5-4610

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅+25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.3 vs 25.7 PassMark/$ ($1,219 MSRP vs $250 MSRP).

Xeon W3670

2010

Why buy it

✅Costs $969 less on MSRP ($250 MSRP vs $1,219 MSRP).
✅Delivers 384.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 25.7 vs 5.3 PassMark/$ ($250 MSRP vs $1,219 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (6,424 vs 6,460).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 15 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-4610 better than Xeon W3670?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon W3670 is ahead with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-4610 pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. Xeon E5-4610 also has the bigger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-4610 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 6 cores and 12 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB).

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

Xeon E5-4610 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon W3670 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon E5-4610 comes in 387.6% more expensive on MSRP at $1,219 MSRP versus $250 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon W3670 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon W3670 is also 384.9% better value on MSRP (25.7 vs 5.3 PassMark/$), 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 E5-4610 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010), 25% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 12 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 6 cores / 12 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon E5-4610 vs Xeon W3670 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E5-4610

The Xeon E5-4610 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB (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: 6,460 points. Launch price was $800.

Xeon W3670

The Xeon W3670 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Gulftown (2010−2011) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.46 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 6,424 points. Launch price was $295.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Xeon E5-4610 and Xeon W3670 share an identical 6-core/12-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the Xeon E5-4610 versus 3.46 GHz on the Xeon W3670 — a 17.6% clock advantage for the Xeon W3670 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Xeon E5-4610 uses the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon W3670 uses Gulftown (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-4610 scores 6,460 against the Xeon W3670's 6,424 — a 0.6% lead for the Xeon E5-4610. L3 cache: 15 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-4610 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon W3670.

Feature	Xeon E5-4610	Xeon W3670
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	6 / 12
Boost Clock	2.9 GHz	3.46 GHz+19%
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	3.2 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	15 MB (total)+25%	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)	Gulftown (2010−2011)
PassMark	6,460	6,424

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon E5-4610 uses the LGA2011 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon W3670 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon E5-4610	Xeon W3670
Socket	LGA2011	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon E5-4610 was priced at $1219, while the Xeon W3670 came in at $250. On launch pricing ($1219 vs $250), Xeon W3670 was $969 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon E5-4610 delivers 5.3 pts/$ vs 25.7 pts/$ for the Xeon W3670 — making the Xeon W3670 the 131.6% better value option.

Feature	Xeon E5-4610	Xeon W3670
MSRP	$1219	$250-79%
Performance per Dollar	5.3	25.7+385%
Release Date	2012	2010

Search Xeon E5-4610 on Amazon

Search Xeon W3670 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.