Xeon E5440 vs X5670

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X5670
2010
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.84
+156%

Xeon X5670 outperforms Xeon E5440 by a whopping 156% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14662154
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.06no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesXeon (Desktop)no data
Power efficiency3.831.77
Architecture codenameWestmere-EP (2010−2011)no data
Release date16 March 2010 (14 years ago)1 January 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$67no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440 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)no data
Threads12no data
Base clock speed2.93 GHz2.83 GHz
Boost clock speed3.33 GHzno data
Bus rate6400 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)no data
L3 cache12 MB (shared)12 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size239 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature81 °C67 °C
Number of transistors1,170 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.35V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440 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 configuration2no data
SocketFCLGA1366,LGA1366LGA771
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switching++
PAE40 Bitno data
FSB parityno data+

Security technologies

Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size288 GBno data
Max memory channels3no data
Maximum memory bandwidth32 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440.

PCIe version2.0no data

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 X5670 3.84
+156%
Xeon E5440 1.50

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 X5670 6105
+156%
Xeon E5440 2389

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.

Xeon X5670 491
+34.9%
Xeon E5440 364

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.

Xeon X5670 2282
+125%
Xeon E5440 1014

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.84 1.50
Recency 16 March 2010 1 January 2008
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 80 Watt

Xeon X5670 has a 156% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon E5440, on the other hand, has 18.8% lower power consumption.

The Xeon X5670 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5440 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5670 and Xeon E5440, 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 X5670
Xeon X5670
Intel Xeon E5440
Xeon E5440

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.


4.3 484 votes

Rate Xeon X5670 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 504 votes

Rate Xeon E5440 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X5670 or Xeon E5440, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.