Xeon E5640 vs Xeon X5667

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 E5640 vs Xeon X5667 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 E5640 vs Xeon X5667: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon E5640

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.2% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 80W instead of 95W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Xeon X5667

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5640 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (4,697 vs 4,755).
❌18.8% higher power demand at 95W vs 80W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5640 better than Xeon X5667?

Yes. Xeon E5640 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5640 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.2% 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 E5640 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.2% better PassMark.

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

Xeon E5640 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon E5640 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Xeon X5667 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Xeon E5640 vs Xeon X5667 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon E5640

The Xeon E5640 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. Passmark benchmark score: 4,755 points. Launch price was $800.

Xeon X5667

The Xeon X5667 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 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): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,697 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon X5667 is built on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. In PassMark, the Xeon E5640 scores 4,755 against the Xeon X5667's 4,697 — a 1.2% lead for the Xeon E5640.

Feature	Xeon E5640	Xeon X5667
Cores / Threads	—	4 / 8
Boost Clock	—	3.46 GHz
Base Clock	—	3.06 GHz
L3 Cache	—	12 MB (total)
L2 Cache	—	256 kB (per core)
Process	—	32 nm
Architecture	—	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	4,755+1%	4,697

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Xeon E5640) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon X5667). Primary use case: Xeon X5667 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Xeon X5667 rivals Core i7-980X.