AMD Athlon 240GE vs Intel Xeon E5640 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data is unambiguous across every measured benchmark: the AMD Athlon 240GE wins all five head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Xeon E5640. The Athlon 240GE leads by a consistent 14.8% to 14.9% margin in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, regardless of the Cinebench version used. This consistency indicates a fundamental performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Intel Xeon E5640, despite having twice the core count and four additional threads, cannot overcome the architectural generation gap. Its average benchmark score is 1137, which places it at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Athlon 240GE posts an average score of 1121, also at the 32nd percentile. This near-identical percentile ranking means the two processors occupy the same overall performance tier, but the Athlon achieves this with half the cores and a fraction of the power draw.

Buyers should choose the AMD Athlon 240GE for any modern desktop workload where single-thread responsiveness matters, including everyday computing, office productivity, and light gaming with its integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5640 remains relevant only for legacy server platforms on Socket 1366 where the motherboard infrastructure is already in place, and where ECC memory support is a hard requirement. For new builds, the Athlon 240GE is the clear recommendation based purely on benchmark outcomes.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5640 is a Westmere-EP part built on a 32 nm process at Intel's foundry, containing 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. It targets the server and workstation segment, uses the Intel Socket 1366 platform, and supports DDR3 memory across a triple-channel memory bus. The architecture dates to a 2010 release and is now end-of-life.

The AMD Athlon 240GE uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 4,950 million transistors into a 209.8 mm² die. It is an active desktop part released in late 2018 for the AMD Socket AM4 platform. It supports DDR4 memory through a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU, a capability the Xeon entirely lacks.

Core configurations differ sharply. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 2.93 GHz. The Athlon offers only 2 cores and 4 threads, but runs at a higher 3.50 GHz base clock with no boost clock listed. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The Athlon has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3.

PCIe support favors the AMD part with Gen 3 connectivity on 8 CPU lanes, while the Xeon uses Gen 2. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the Athlon does not. The Xeon has a 80 W TDP versus 35 W for the Athlon, a difference of 45 W that matters for cooling and power delivery. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not part of the value proposition for either.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a uniform pattern of AMD dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Athlon 240GE scores 390 against 332 for the Xeon E5640, a 14.9% advantage. This is notable because the Xeon has twice the physical cores, yet the Athlon's newer architecture and higher clock speed more than compensate.

Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the story: the Athlon posts 1627 versus 1387 for the Xeon, again a 14.8% lead. The single-core R20 test shows 229 against 195, also 14.8% in favor of the Athlon. The margins remain identical at 14.8% in both Cinebench R23 multi-core (3876 versus 3303) and Cinebench R23 single-core (547 versus 466).

The consistency of the 14.8% to 14.9% delta across all five tests suggests the performance gap is structural, driven by architectural efficiency rather than benchmark-specific scaling. The Athlon's per-core performance advantage is so large that the Xeon's additional cores cannot close the gap even in multi-threaded workloads.

For context, the Xeon's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i5-2550K with an average score of 1136 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i5-3570T also at 1136 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE at 1138 (0.1% behind the Xeon), and the Intel Core i3-N300 at 1135 (0.2% ahead). These sub-1% deltas show the Xeon sits squarely in a dense cluster of processors.

The Athlon's nearest rivals are similarly tight: the Intel Xeon D-1518 matches its 1121 average exactly, the Intel Core i7-2860QM is 0.1% ahead, the Intel Core i3-4150 is 0.2% ahead, and the Intel Core i5-3550S is 0.3% ahead. Both processors are therefore mid-pack performers, but the Athlon achieves this standing with far fewer resources.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Athlon 240GE wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3876 versus 3303 for the Intel Xeon E5640, a 14.8% advantage despite having only 2 cores and 4 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5640 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5640 supports ECC memory and uses DDR3 across a triple-channel memory bus. The AMD Athlon 240GE does not support ECC memory and uses DDR4 across a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Athlon 240GE includes integrated graphics, specifically the Radeon Vega 3. The Intel Xeon E5640 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 has a TDP of 80 W, while the AMD Athlon 240GE has a TDP of 35 W. The Athlon draws 45 W less under load, which simplifies cooling requirements and reduces system power draw.

Q: Are both processors currently available for purchase?

A: The AMD Athlon 240GE is listed as active production, while the Intel Xeon E5640 is end-of-life. The Xeon was released in March 2010, the Athlon in December 2018.

Q: How close are their overall benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 has an average benchmark score of 1137, and the AMD Athlon 240GE has 1121. Both sit at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they are statistically equivalent in aggregate performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Athlon 240GE wins every recorded benchmark, so its strengths are straightforward. It is the better choice for single-threaded workloads, where its 3.50 GHz base clock and modern Zen architecture deliver a 14.8% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core (547 versus 466). The integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics make it a complete desktop solution without a separate GPU, and its 35 W TDP suits small form factor builds and low-power systems. The DDR4 memory support and Gen 3 PCIe also bring modern platform benefits.

The Intel Xeon E5640 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but its architecture still offers specific advantages for certain use cases. The 4 cores and 8 threads provide a higher thread count than the Athlon, which could matter for workloads that scale with many concurrent tasks, even if Cinebench does not reflect this advantage. The ECC memory support is a critical feature for servers and workstations where data integrity is non-negotiable, and the triple-channel DDR3 memory bus provides high bandwidth potential for memory-intensive server workloads. The 12 MB of shared L3 cache is three times larger than the Athlon's 4 MB, which may benefit certain cache-sensitive applications.

The Socket 1366 platform, while old, supports multiple Xeon configurations in a single system, making the E5640 a potential candidate for upgrading existing dual-socket servers. The 80 W TDP is higher than the Athlon, but still manageable in server chassis designed for multi-processor configurations.

For a new desktop build, the Athlon 240GE is the only sensible choice from the data. For a legacy server refresh or a system requiring ECC memory on a budget, the Xeon E5640 remains functional, but the benchmark data shows it is significantly slower in every measured rendering workload. The Athlon's consistent 14.8% lead across all Cinebench versions is the defining statistic of this comparison, and it reflects a generational leap that core count alone cannot overcome.