GX-210JA vs Xeon E5440
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2143 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | AMD |
| Power efficiency | 1.76 | no data |
| Architecture codename | no data | Temash (2013) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | no data | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.83 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 12 MB L2 Cache | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA 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.
| Socket | LGA771 | FT3 BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| FSB parity | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | - | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 23 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 6 Watt |
GX-210JA has an age advantage of 5 years, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1233.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon E5440 is a server/workstation processor while GX-210JA is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5440 and GX-210JA, 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.
