AMD Athlon 240GE vs Intel Xeon E5630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture across every recorded Cinebench test. The AMD Athlon 240GE wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with the margin holding almost perfectly steady in the 20% range. This is not a case of one processor winning narrowly in a single workload; it is a systematic advantage that repeats across single-core and multi-core tests alike.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Athlon 240GE scores 390 points against 324 for the Xeon E5630, a 20.4% delta. That pattern carries over to Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the AMD part posts 1627 versus 1354, a 20.2% advantage. The single-core gap is nearly identical. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Athlon scores 229 versus 191, a 19.9% lead. Cinebench R23 tells the same story: 3876 versus 3226 in multi-core, a 20.1% delta, and 547 versus 455 in single-core, a 20.2% delta. The consistency here is striking. Across five separate tests, the performance edge never dips below 19.9% or exceeds 20.4%, which points to a stable, architectural advantage rather than workload-specific luck.

It is worth remembering the Xeon E5630 has twice the physical cores and twice the threads of the Athlon 240GE. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Athlon offers 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite that hardware disadvantage, the Athlon still wins multi-core tests by roughly 20%. That means the per-core efficiency of the Zen architecture in the Athlon is substantially higher than the older Westmere design in the Xeon. The Xeon’s extra cores cannot compensate for the generational gap in instructions per clock.

The average normalized benchmark scores in the database reflect a similar closeness in overall positioning. The Athlon 240GE holds an average benchmark score of 1121, while the Xeon E5630 sits at 1110. That puts the two processors within about 1% of each other in the database’s aggregate metric, despite the Athlon winning every dedicated Cinebench test by a wide margin. The explanation lies in the neighbor comparison. The Athlon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-4150 with an average score of 1119 and the Core i5-3550S at 1118, while the Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Core i5-4570T at 1108 and the AMD PRO A12-8870 at 1107. Both processors land in a crowded mid-range cluster, but the head-to-head Cinebench results give the Athlon a clear edge in the workloads that matter for rendering and CPU compute.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The AMD Athlon 240GE uses the Zen architecture, specifically the Raven Ridge generation, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel Xeon E5630 uses the Westmere-EP architecture, built on a 32 nm process at Intel. That process gap alone explains a great deal of the efficiency difference. The Athlon integrates 4,950 million transistors on a 209.8 mm² die, while the Xeon integrates 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The Athlon packs over four times as many transistors into a smaller physical area, which is a direct consequence of the denser manufacturing node.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The Athlon runs at a base clock of 3.50 GHz with no boost clock listed, while the Xeon runs at 2.53 GHz base with a 2.80 GHz boost. The Athlon’s 3.50 GHz base clock is already far above the Xeon’s maximum boost speed of 2.80 GHz. That raw frequency advantage compounds with the newer architecture’s higher instructions per clock to produce the roughly 20% benchmark lead.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Athlon provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon’s triple the L3 capacity reflects its server heritage, where large shared caches help feed many cores. The Athlon’s smaller L3 is typical of a dual-core desktop part, but the per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger on the AMD side.

Memory support diverges completely. The Athlon uses DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon uses DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. The Athlon does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon does. The Xeon also targets the server and workstation segment, while the Athlon is a desktop part. The Athlon includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Athlon is still in active production, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The Athlon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2. The Athlon launches with a $75 MSRP, while the Xeon has no recorded launch price.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD Athlon 240GE wins with a score of 3876 against the Intel Xeon E5630’s 3226, a 20.1% advantage.

Q: How does the Athlon 240GE achieve higher performance despite having fewer cores?

A: The Athlon has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Athlon compensates with a 3.50 GHz base clock versus the Xeon’s 2.53 GHz base clock, plus a much newer 14 nm Zen architecture versus the Xeon’s 32 nm Westmere design.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The Athlon 240GE scores 229 in Cinebench R20 single-core, while the Xeon E5630 scores 191. The Athlon leads by 19.9%.

Q: Does the Xeon E5630 have better multi-threaded performance due to its 8 threads?

A: No. Despite having 8 threads to the Athlon’s 4, the Xeon loses every multi-core Cinebench test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Athlon scores 390 versus 324, and in Cinebench R20 multi-core it scores 1627 versus 1354.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E5630 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD Athlon 240GE has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon’s L3 is three times larger.

Q: What are the production statuses of the two processors?

A: The AMD Athlon 240GE is listed as Active in production. The Intel Xeon E5630 is listed as End-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general computing and rendering workloads. The AMD Athlon 240GE outperforms the Intel Xeon E5630 by roughly 20% across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both single-core and multi-core. It does so with half the physical cores, half the threads, and at 35 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 80 W TDP. The Athlon also brings integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics, DDR4 memory support, and an active production status. The Xeon counters with triple-channel DDR3 support, ECC memory, 12 MB of L3 cache, and a server/workstation market position.

For a desktop user looking at these two options, the Athlon 240GE is the stronger choice on every measured benchmark. It wins single-core tests by about 20%, which translates to snappier everyday responsiveness and better performance in lightly threaded applications. It wins multi-core tests by about 20%, which means even workloads that should theoretically favor the Xeon’s extra cores still run faster on the Athlon. The Xeon’s advantages are niche: ECC memory support and a larger L3 cache matter in specific server or workstation scenarios, but the benchmark results show that those features do not translate into Cinebench performance.

The Xeon E5630 remains a functional processor for legacy server platforms on Socket 1366 with DDR3 memory. But the recorded data shows no benchmark scenario where it beats the Athlon. The Athlon occupies the 32nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon sits at the 31st percentile, a negligible aggregate difference. But the head-to-head tests are unambiguous: 5 wins for the Athlon, 0 for the Xeon. A buyer choosing between these two on performance alone should select the AMD Athlon 240GE.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Athlon 240GE | Intel Xeon E5630 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.53 GHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 2.80 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 80 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Architecture | Zen | Westmere |

| Codename | Zen | Westmere-EP |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 32 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 4,950 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 209.8 mm² | 239 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Vega 3 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | $75 | Not listed |

The two parts also differ in release timing, with the Athlon arriving in December 2018 and the Xeon in March 2010, but the database records no launch MSRP for the Xeon. Both processors have locked multipliers. The Athlon carries part number YD240GC6M2OFB, while the Xeon carries SLBVB. The Athlon’s generation is listed as Athlon (Zen (Raven Ridge)), while the Xeon’s generation is Xeon (Westmere-EP).