Xeon Gold 6246R vs i3-3240
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Gold 6246R outperforms i3-3240 by a whopping 1217% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2129 | 290 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.62 | 13.88 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon Gold |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 3 September 2012 (12 years ago) | 24 February 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $75 | $3,286 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon Gold 6246R has 430% better value for money than i3-3240.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 34 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 35.75 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 75 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | - | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 140.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 48 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.50 | 19.76 |
| Recency | 3 September 2012 | 24 February 2020 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 16 |
| Threads | 4 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 205 Watt |
i3-3240 has 272.7% lower power consumption.
Xeon Gold 6246R, on the other hand, has a 1217.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon Gold 6246R is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-3240 in performance tests.
Note that Core i3-3240 is a desktop processor while Xeon Gold 6246R is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-3240 and Xeon Gold 6246R, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
