Winner
Intel Xeon E3-1220
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E3-1220 based on its performance, single-core performance and value.
See full details Intel Xeon E5240 vs E3-1220 |
Released February, 2008
Intel Xeon E5240
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5240
 | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
| | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.89 GHz | | Lower typical power consumption 52.81W |
VS
Released April, 2011
Intel Xeon E3-1220
- 3.1 GHz
- Quad core
5.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the E3-1220
| | Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,722 | | More cores 4 |
| | Much better performance per watt 12.06 pt/W | | Much better performance per dollar 4.59 pt/$ |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5240 vs E3-1220 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 | |
| 5.4 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3.49 GHz | More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 65W | Around 20% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 70.08 $/year | Around 20% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 19.27 $/year | Around 20% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,722 | vs | 1,277 | Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 12.06 pt/W | vs | 1.86 pt/W | Around 6.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 4.59 pt/$ | vs | 0.19 pt/$ | More than 24.5x better performance per dollar | |||
| Higher clock speed | 3.1 GHz | vs | 3 GHz | Around 5% higher clock speed | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Newer | Apr, 2011 | vs | Feb, 2008 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.1 GHz | vs | 3 GHz | Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5240 vs E3-1220
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5240 | vs | E3-1220 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.1 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 771 | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 65W | 80W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 19.27 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 70.08 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.86 pt/W | 12.06 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 65W | |
details | Xeon E5240 | vs | E3-1220 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 31 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 66°C | Unknown - 69.1°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.89 GHz | 3.49 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3 GHz | 3.1 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.89 GHz | 3.49 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | None | |
| Label | N/A | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
| 3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
 Intel Xeon E5240  Report a correction |  Intel Xeon E3-1220 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $210 | $240 | |
| E3-1220 vs 3770 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $210 | $205 | |
| E3-1220 vs 2400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $210 | $200 | |
| E3-1220 vs E3-1220 v2 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $210 | $180 | |
| E3-1220 vs 3470 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $210 | $160 | |
| E3-1220 vs 4570 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $210 | $238 | |
| E3-1220 vs E3-1230 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $210 | $125 | |
| E3-1220 vs 3220 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
