Xeon Platinum 8571N vs i3-3240
Aggregate performance score
Xeon Platinum 8571N outperforms Core i3-3240 by a whopping 2839% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2159 | 51 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.62 | 10.30 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 2.52 | 13.58 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Emerald Rapids (2023) |
| Release date | 3 September 2012 (12 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $75 | $6,839 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon Platinum 8571N has 293% better value for money than i3-3240.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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) | 52 |
| Threads | 4 | 104 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 300 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | 2x 763 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | 78 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 300 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | Intel® AMX, 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 | + | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | - | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 Platinum 8571N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 @ 4800 MT/s (1 DPC) |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | N/A |
| 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 Platinum 8571N integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 80 |
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 | 1.52 | 44.68 |
| Recency | 3 September 2012 | 14 December 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 52 |
| Threads | 4 | 104 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 300 Watt |
i3-3240 has 445.5% lower power consumption.
Xeon Platinum 8571N, on the other hand, has a 2839.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and 2500% more physical cores and 2500% more threads.
The Xeon Platinum 8571N 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 Platinum 8571N is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-3240 and Xeon Platinum 8571N, 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.
