i3-9100F vs Xeon E5-2440

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2440
2012
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.98
Core i3-9100F
2019
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
4.40
+10.6%

Core i3-9100F outperforms Xeon E5-2440 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14501363
Place by popularitynot in top-10040
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.9210.49
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Seriesno dataIntel Core i3
Power efficiency3.826.17
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EN (2012)Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$295$122

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i3-9100F has 446% better value for money than Xeon E5-2440.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads124
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz4.2 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rate7.2 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data36
L1 cache64 KB (per core)256 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache15360 KB (shared)6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size294 mm2126 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors1,270 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1356FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size384 GB64 GB
Max memory channels32
Maximum memory bandwidth32 GB/s38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F.

PCIe version3.03.0
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 3.98
i3-9100F 4.40
+10.6%

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
i3-9100F 6736
+10.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.98 4.40
Recency 14 May 2012 23 April 2019
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 12 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon E5-2440 has 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

i3-9100F, on the other hand, has a 10.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Core i3-9100F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2440 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2440 is a server/workstation processor while Core i3-9100F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2440 and Core i3-9100F, 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 i3-9100F
Core i3-9100F

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
3.2 6941 vote

Rate Core i3-9100F 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 i3-9100F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.