Xeon L5609 vs Xeon X3480

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 L5609 vs Xeon X3480 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 L5609 vs Xeon X3480: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon L5609

2010

Why buy it

✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Costs $383 less on MSRP ($229 MSRP vs $612 MSRP).
✅Delivers 164.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 14.4 vs 5.4 PassMark/$ ($229 MSRP vs $612 MSRP).
✅Draws 40W instead of 95W, a 55W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon X3480 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (3,298 vs 3,327).

Xeon X3480

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 5.4 vs 14.4 PassMark/$ ($612 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
❌137.5% higher power demand at 95W vs 40W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon X3480 better than Xeon L5609?

Yes. Xeon X3480 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 9.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.9% 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 X3480 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.7% 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 X3480 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Xeon X3480 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon L5609 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon X3480 comes in 167.2% more expensive on MSRP at $612 MSRP versus $229 MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon L5609 is also 164.9% better value on MSRP (14.4 vs 5.4 PassMark/$), 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 X3480 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon L5609 vs Xeon X3480 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon L5609

The Xeon L5609 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.86 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 40 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,298 points. Launch price was $800.

Xeon X3480

The Xeon X3480 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 May 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Lynnfield (2009−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.06 GHz, with boost up to 3.73 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1156. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333. Passmark benchmark score: 3,327 points. Launch price was $612.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon L5609 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon X3480's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.86 GHz on the Xeon L5609 versus 3.73 GHz on the Xeon X3480 — a 66.9% clock advantage for the Xeon X3480 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 3.06 GHz). The Xeon L5609 uses the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon X3480 uses Lynnfield (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon L5609 scores 3,298 against the Xeon X3480's 3,327 — a 0.9% lead for the Xeon X3480. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Xeon L5609 vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon X3480.

Feature	Xeon L5609	Xeon X3480
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	1.86 GHz	3.73 GHz+101%
Base Clock	1.86 GHz	3.06 GHz+65%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)+50%	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)	Lynnfield (2009−2010)
PassMark	3,298	3,327

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Xeon L5609 uses the LGA1366 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon X3480 uses LGA1156 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Xeon L5609	Xeon X3480
Socket	LGA1366	LGA1156
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Xeon L5609 was priced at $229, while the Xeon X3480 came in at $612. On launch pricing ($229 vs $612), Xeon L5609 was $383 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Xeon L5609 delivers 14.4 pts/$ vs 5.4 pts/$ for the Xeon X3480 — making the Xeon L5609 the 90.4% better value option.

Feature	Xeon L5609	Xeon X3480
MSRP	$229-63%	$612
Performance per Dollar	14.4+167%	5.4
Release Date	2010	2010

Search Xeon L5609 on Amazon

Search Xeon X3480 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.