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 i5-3570S

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $783 less on MSRP ($213 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
✅Delivers 370.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 22.0 vs 4.7 PassMark/$ ($213 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 2500, while Xeon L5640 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon L5640 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5640, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.

Xeon L5640

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
✅Draws 60W instead of 65W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,659 vs 4,686).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.7 vs 22.0 PassMark/$ ($996 MSRP vs $213 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-3570S can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-3570S.

Core i5-3570S

2012

Xeon L5640

2010

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $783 less on MSRP ($213 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
✅Delivers 370.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 22.0 vs 4.7 PassMark/$ ($213 MSRP vs $996 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 2500, while Xeon L5640 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +13.4% higher average FPS across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads.
✅Draws 60W instead of 65W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon L5640 across 8 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon L5640, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (4,659 vs 4,686).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.7 vs 22.0 PassMark/$ ($996 MSRP vs $213 MSRP).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i5-3570S can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-3570S.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-3570S better than Xeon L5640?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Xeon L5640 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-3570S is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-3570S is the better fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i5-3570S is the smarter buy today. Core i5-3570S is $783 cheaper on MSRP at $213 MSRP versus $996 MSRP, and it gives you 0.6% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Xeon L5640 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 13.4% average FPS lead across 8 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 370.3% better value on MSRP (22.0 vs 4.7 PassMark/$), 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 i5-3570S is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

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 i5-3570S Benchmark Check

Xeon L5640 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-3570S	Xeon L5640
1080p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	107 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	83 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	114 FPS	111 FPS
high	90 FPS	86 FPS
ultra	69 FPS	70 FPS
4K
low	66 FPS	61 FPS
medium	56 FPS	55 FPS
high	44 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	34 FPS	34 FPS

Open Core i5-3570S Open Xeon L5640

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-3570S	Xeon L5640
1080p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	116 FPS
1440p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	105 FPS	107 FPS
4K
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	95 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	74 FPS

Open Core i5-3570S Open Xeon L5640

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-3570S	Xeon L5640
1080p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	116 FPS
1440p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	116 FPS
4K
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	116 FPS

Open Core i5-3570S Open Xeon L5640

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-3570S	Xeon L5640
1080p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	116 FPS
1440p
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	116 FPS
4K
low	117 FPS	116 FPS
medium	117 FPS	116 FPS
high	117 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	116 FPS

Open Core i5-3570S Open Xeon L5640

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-3570S and Xeon L5640

Core i5-3570S

The Core i5-3570S is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,686 points. Launch price was $285.

Xeon L5640

The Xeon L5640 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 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 60 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 4,659 points. Launch price was $200.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-3570S packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon L5640 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon L5640 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the Core i5-3570S versus 2.8 GHz on the Xeon L5640 — a 30.3% clock advantage for the Core i5-3570S (base: 3.1 GHz vs 2.26 GHz). The Core i5-3570S uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon L5640 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-3570S scores 4,686 against the Xeon L5640's 4,659 — a 0.6% lead for the Core i5-3570S. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i5-3570S vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon L5640.

Feature	Core i5-3570S	Xeon L5640
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz+36%	2.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.1 GHz+37%	2.26 GHz
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	4,686	4,659
Geekbench 6 Single	663	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-3570S uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon L5640 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 5.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the Core i5-3570S versus DDR3 1333 MHz on the Xeon L5640 — the Xeon L5640 supports 200% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon L5640 supports up to 288 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 160% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-3570S) vs 3 (Xeon L5640). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i5-3570S) vs 0 (Xeon L5640) — the Core i5-3570S offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H61,B75,H77,Z75,Z77 (Core i5-3570S) and Intel 5520,Intel X58 (Xeon L5640).

Feature	Core i5-3570S	Xeon L5640
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 5.0+67%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3 1333 MHz
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	288 GB+800%
RAM Channels	2	3+50%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-3570S) vs true (Xeon L5640). The Core i5-3570S includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 2500), while the Xeon L5640 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-3570S targets Legacy Desktop, Xeon L5640 targets Server Low Power. Direct competitor: Core i5-3570S rivals A10-5800K.

Feature	Core i5-3570S	Xeon L5640
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	HD Graphics 2500	—
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	true
Target Use	Legacy Desktop	Server Low Power

💰

Value Analysis

The Core i5-3570S launched at $213 MSRP, while the Xeon L5640 debuted at $996. On MSRP ($213 vs $996), the Core i5-3570S is $783 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-3570S delivers 22.0 pts/$ vs 4.7 pts/$ for the Xeon L5640 — making the Core i5-3570S the 129.9% better value option.