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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core Ultra 7 266V

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,570 less on MSRP ($520 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Delivers 302.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.1 vs 9.2 PassMark/$ ($520 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 135W, a 118W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 35 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2690 v4, which brings 14 cores / 28 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2690 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+191.7% larger total L3 cache (35 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 14 cores / 28 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (19,255 vs 19,274).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.2 vs 37.1 PassMark/$ ($2,090 MSRP vs $520 MSRP).
❌694.1% higher power demand at 135W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 266V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Core Ultra 7 266V

2024

Xeon E5-2690 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,570 less on MSRP ($520 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Delivers 302.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 37.1 vs 9.2 PassMark/$ ($520 MSRP vs $2,090 MSRP).
✅Draws 17W instead of 135W, a 118W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FCBGA2833 with DDR5 support instead of LGA2011 and DDR4.

Why buy it

✅+191.7% larger total L3 cache (35 MB vs 12 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 14 cores / 28 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (12 MB vs 35 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2690 v4, which brings 14 cores / 28 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (19,255 vs 19,274).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.2 vs 37.1 PassMark/$ ($2,090 MSRP vs $520 MSRP).
❌694.1% higher power demand at 135W vs 17W.
❌Older platform position on LGA2011 with DDR4, while Core Ultra 7 266V moves to FCBGA2833 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 7 266V better than Xeon E5-2690 v4?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon E5-2690 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core Ultra 7 266V is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core Ultra 7 266V is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 0.9% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 7 266V is the better fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 8 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core Ultra 7 266V is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 7 266V is $1,570 cheaper on MSRP at $520 MSRP versus $2,090 MSRP, and it gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 302.3% better value on MSRP (37.1 vs 9.2 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Core Ultra 7 266V is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2024 vs 2016), a healthier platform with FCBGA2833 and DDR5 instead of LGA2011, and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 8 threads instead of 14/28. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core Ultra 7 266V Benchmark Check

Xeon E5-2690 v4 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 266V	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	272 FPS	177 FPS
medium	243 FPS	154 FPS
high	205 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	176 FPS	97 FPS
1440p
low	230 FPS	148 FPS
medium	185 FPS	125 FPS
high	152 FPS	95 FPS
ultra	134 FPS	77 FPS
4K
low	161 FPS	69 FPS
medium	130 FPS	61 FPS
high	101 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	38 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 266V Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 7 266V	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	236 FPS	364 FPS
medium	195 FPS	330 FPS
high	176 FPS	279 FPS
ultra	155 FPS	224 FPS
1440p
low	210 FPS	313 FPS
medium	181 FPS	284 FPS
high	164 FPS	242 FPS
ultra	139 FPS	188 FPS
4K
low	155 FPS	195 FPS
medium	138 FPS	178 FPS
high	132 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	114 FPS	120 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 266V Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 7 266V	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	482 FPS	481 FPS
medium	482 FPS	481 FPS
high	482 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	482 FPS	481 FPS
1440p
low	482 FPS	481 FPS
medium	482 FPS	481 FPS
high	482 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	468 FPS	481 FPS
4K
low	482 FPS	447 FPS
medium	462 FPS	363 FPS
high	404 FPS	331 FPS
ultra	336 FPS	277 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 266V Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 7 266V	Xeon E5-2690 v4
1080p
low	482 FPS	481 FPS
medium	482 FPS	481 FPS
high	482 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	482 FPS	481 FPS
1440p
low	482 FPS	481 FPS
medium	482 FPS	481 FPS
high	482 FPS	481 FPS
ultra	482 FPS	461 FPS
4K
low	482 FPS	481 FPS
medium	482 FPS	470 FPS
high	480 FPS	416 FPS
ultra	418 FPS	358 FPS

Open Core Ultra 7 266V Open Xeon E5-2690 v4

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 7 266V and Xeon E5-2690 v4

Core Ultra 7 266V

The Core Ultra 7 266V is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 September 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 2.5 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA2833. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 19,274 points. Launch price was $299.

Xeon E5-2690 v4

The Xeon E5-2690 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 14 cores and 28 threads. Base frequency is 2.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 35 MB. L2 cache: 3.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 135 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 19,255 points. Launch price was $2,090.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 7 266V packs 8 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 offers 14 cores / 28 threads — the Xeon E5-2690 v4 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the Core Ultra 7 266V versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2690 v4 — a 35.3% clock advantage for the Core Ultra 7 266V (base: 2.2 GHz vs 2.6 GHz). The Core Ultra 7 266V uses the Lunar Lake (2024) architecture (3 nm), while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 7 266V scores 19,274 against the Xeon E5-2690 v4's 19,255 — a 0.1% lead for the Core Ultra 7 266V. L3 cache: 12 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 7 266V vs 35 MB on the Xeon E5-2690 v4.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 266V	Xeon E5-2690 v4
Cores / Threads	8 / 8	14 / 28+75%
Boost Clock	5 GHz+43%	3.5 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	2.6 GHz+18%
L3 Cache	12 MB (total)	35 MB+192%
L2 Cache	2.5 MB (per core)	3.5 MB+40%
Process	3 nm-79%	14 nm
Architecture	Lunar Lake (2024)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	19,274	19,255

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 7 266V uses the FCBGA2833 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core Ultra 7 266V	Xeon E5-2690 v4
Socket	FCBGA2833	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR4-2400
Max RAM Capacity	—	1536 GB
RAM Channels	—	4
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	40

💰

Value Analysis

The Core Ultra 7 266V launched at $520 MSRP, while the Xeon E5-2690 v4 debuted at $2090. On MSRP ($520 vs $2090), the Core Ultra 7 266V is $1570 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core Ultra 7 266V delivers 37.1 pts/$ vs 9.2 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2690 v4 — making the Core Ultra 7 266V the 120.4% better value option.