Xeon W-3375 vs E-240
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W-3375 outperforms E-240 by a whopping 30900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E-240 and Xeon W-3375 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3354 | 86 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD E-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.63 | 13.04 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Ice Lake-W (2021) |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 29 July 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
E-240 and Xeon W-3375 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 38 |
| Threads | 1 | 76 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 57 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 83 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E-240 and Xeon W-3375 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 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball | FCLGA4189 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 270 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E-240 and Xeon W-3375. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
E-240 and Xeon W-3375 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E-240 and Xeon W-3375 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E-240 and Xeon W-3375. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 Single-channel | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6310 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E-240 and Xeon W-3375.
| PCIe version | no data | 4 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.12 | 37.20 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 29 July 2021 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 38 |
| Threads | 1 | 76 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 270 Watt |
E-240 has 1400% lower power consumption.
Xeon W-3375, on the other hand, has a 30900% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 3700% more physical cores and 7500% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon W-3375 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-240 in performance tests.
Be aware that E-240 is a notebook processor while Xeon W-3375 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E-240 and Xeon W-3375, 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.
