i3-560 vs Xeon E5-2440

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2440
2012
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.91
+265%
Core i3-560
2010
2 cores / 4 threads, 73 Watt
1.07

Xeon E5-2440 outperforms Core i3-560 by a whopping 265% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14562423
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.900.04
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency3.821.36
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EN (2012)Clarkdale (2010−2011)
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)29 August 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$295$190

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2440 has 4650% better value for money than i3-560.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads124
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.33 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz0.33 GHz
Bus rate7.2 GT/s2.5 GT/s
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache15360 KB (shared)4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size294 mm281 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data73 °C
Number of transistors1,270 million382 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA1356FCLGA1156
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt73 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+-
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size384 GB16.38 GB
Max memory channels32
Maximum memory bandwidth32 GB/s21 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel® HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel® Processors
Clear Video HDno data+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes2416

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.

Xeon E5-2440 3.91
+265%
i3-560 1.07

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.

Xeon E5-2440 6091
+266%
i3-560 1662

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.91 1.07
Recency 14 May 2012 29 August 2010
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 12 4
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 73 Watt

Xeon E5-2440 has a 265.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

i3-560, on the other hand, has 30.1% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2440 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-560 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2440 is a server/workstation processor while Core i3-560 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-560, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon E5-2440
Xeon E5-2440
Intel Core i3-560
Core i3-560

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 92 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2440 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 81 vote

Rate Core i3-560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2440 or Core i3-560, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.