Winner
Intel Core i7 3632QM
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3632QM based on its performance, single-core performance, power consumption and value.
See full details Intel Xeon E5240 vs Core i7 3632QM |
Released February, 2008
Intel Xeon E5240
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
5.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5240
 | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Significantly higher clock speed 3 GHz |
| | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core | | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.89 GHz |
VS
Released July, 2012
Intel Core i7 3632QM
- 2.2 GHz
- Quad core
8.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i7 3632QM
| | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Much better performance per dollar 1.28 pt/$ | | Much better performance per watt 13.87 pt/W |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5240 vs 3632QM among all CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 8.1 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core i7 3632QMCPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 1 MB | 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.2 GHz | More than 35% higher clock speed | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 12x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.89 GHz | vs | 2.87 GHz | More than 70% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 1.28 pt/$ | vs | 0.19 pt/$ | Around 7x better performance per dollar | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 13.87 pt/W | vs | 1.86 pt/W | Around 7.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Significantly lower typical power consumption | 28.44W | vs | 52.81W | More than 45% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 105 °C | vs | 66 °C | Around 60% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 7,155 | vs | 2,424 | Around 3x better PassMark score | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 2 | 6 more threads | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2012 | vs | Feb, 2008 | Release date over 4 years later | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,598 | vs | 1,277 | More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | More than 45% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5240 vs Core i7 3632QM
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5240 | vs | Core i7 3632QM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 771 | |||
| rPGA 988B | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 65W | 35W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 8.43 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 30.66 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.86 pt/W | 13.87 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 28.44W | |
details | Xeon E5240 | vs | Core i7 3632QM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 22 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 66°C | Unknown - 105°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.89 GHz | 2.87 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3 GHz | 3.04 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.89 GHz | 2.87 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 4000 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 650 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,150 MHz | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
 Intel Xeon E5240  Report a correction |  Intel Core i7 3632QM Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $378 | ||
| 3632QM vs 4500M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $378 | $225 | |
| 3632QM vs 3230M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $378 | $378 | |
| 3632QM vs 3630QM | ||
| | VS |  |
| $378 | $378 | |
| 3632QM vs 3612QM | ||
| | VS |  |
| $378 | ||
| 3632QM vs 5745M | ||
| | VS |  |
| $378 | $393 | |
| 3632QM vs 4500U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $378 | $130 | |
| 3632QM vs 3210M | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||
