Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5440

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5440

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 1 MB 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly higher clock speed 2.83 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 55% higher clock speed
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 5,178 vs 1,564 More than 3.2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 6x more l2 cache per core
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 6,294 vs 1,733 Around 3.8x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.61 GHz vs 2.21 GHz Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,532 vs 953 More than 60% better geekbench 3 single core score
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.96 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Front view of AMD E2 3000M

Reasons to consider the
AMD E2 3000M

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 65W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 67 °C Around 50% higher Maximum operating temperature
Newer Jun, 2011 vs Nov, 2007 Release date over 3 years later
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 19.27 $/year 2.3x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 70.08 $/year 2.3x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5440 vs E2 3000M

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5440
6,294
E2 3000M
1,733

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5440
1,532
E2 3000M
953

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5440
120,650 MB/s
E2 3000M
74,500 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5440
5,178
E2 3000M
1,564

GeekBench

Xeon E5440
5,178
E2 3000M
2,249

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5440
4,000
E2 3000M
1,097

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon E5440
1,208
E2 3000M
601

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5440  vs
E2 3000M 
Clock speed 2.83 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
AMD64
SSE4.1
AMD-V
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ HD 6380G
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
GPU clock speed N/A 400 MHz

details

Xeon E5440  vs
E2 3000M 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 12 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 820,000,000 1,450,000,000
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 8 12
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.35V 0.91 - 1.41V
Operating temperature Unknown - 67°C Unknown - 100°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.61 GHz 2.21 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.96 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.61 GHz 2.21 GHz

power consumption

TDP 80W 35W
Annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 2 pt/W 2.05 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W 28.44W
Intel Xeon E5440
Report a correction
AMD E2 3000M
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus