Athlon II X4 630 vs Xeon E3-1240 v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E3-1240 v2 outperforms Athlon II X4 630 by a whopping 194% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1413 | 2235 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.14 | 6.02 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 5.49 | 1.35 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Propus (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 14 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 16 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $304 | $63 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon II X4 630 has 181% better value for money than Xeon E3-1240 v2.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630 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 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32.77 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
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 | 4.00 | 1.36 |
| Recency | 14 May 2012 | 16 September 2009 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 95 Watt |
Xeon E3-1240 v2 has a 194.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more threads, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 37.7% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E3-1240 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E3-1240 v2 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon II X4 630 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1240 v2 and Athlon II X4 630, 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.
