Intel Core i3-1115GRE vs Intel Xeon E5640 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the Intel Core i3-1115GRE wins every recorded Cinebench comparison against the Intel Xeon E5640. Out of five head-to-head tests, the i3-1115GRE takes all five, with no wins recorded for the Xeon E5640. This is not a close contest; the newer mobile chip dominates across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

The i3-1115GRE’s advantage is consistent, ranging from 15.3% to 15.6% ahead of the Xeon in every test. This suggests the gap is structural rather than workload-specific. Whether a task scales with cores or relies on single-thread speed, the i3-1115GRE comes out ahead. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the choice is unambiguous.

The Xeon E5640, despite being a server-class part with four cores and eight threads, cannot match the newer architecture’s efficiency per clock. Its only theoretical edge lies in platform features like triple-channel memory and a socket designed for multi-socket servers, but in the measured benchmarks, that does not translate into a single win. The data implies the Xeon is outclassed in compute-bound scenarios, even those that traditionally favor more cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i3-1115GRE scores 550 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Xeon E5640 scores 466. That puts the i3-1115GRE 15.3% ahead.

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare in Cinebench R20?

A: The i3-1115GRE records 1637 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, against 1387 for the Xeon E5640, a 15.3% advantage for the i3.

Q: Is the Xeon E5640 better in any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the Xeon E5640 wins zero tests. The i3-1115GRE wins all five recorded comparisons.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Xeon E5640 has an average benchmark score of 1137, while the i3-1115GRE sits at 1127. The Xeon’s average is 0.9% higher, but this reflects a broader benchmark pool, not the Cinebench results where the i3 leads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Xeon E5640 and the Intel Core i3-1115GRE have ECC memory support enabled.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i3-1115GRE boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the Xeon E5640 boosts to 2.93 GHz. The i3’s boost clock is substantially higher, which helps explain its single-core advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the consistency of the i3-1115GRE’s lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3 scores 392 versus the Xeon’s 332, a 15.3% difference. That same 15.3% gap appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1637 vs 1387), Cinebench R23 multi-core (3899 vs 3303), and Cinebench R23 single-core (550 vs 466). The one slightly larger gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3 leads by 15.6% (231 vs 195).

What does this imply? The i3-1115GRE’s advantage is not a fluke of one test. It scales across different Cinebench versions and workload types. The single-core lead of 15.3% to 15.6% suggests a major IPC improvement, likely tied to the Tiger Lake architecture’s newer core design. The multi-core lead of 15.3% is notable because the Xeon has twice as many physical cores (4 vs 2) and twice as many threads (8 vs 4). Despite the core count disadvantage, the i3’s higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency overcome the Xeon’s parallel resources.

The Xeon’s best showing is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it records 3303, but the i3 still beats it by 596 points. For any user running Cinebench-style workloads, the i3-1115GRE is the clear performer. The data does not show a single scenario where the Xeon closes the gap to single digits.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Xeon E5640 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-1115GRE has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.67 GHz for the Xeon and 2.20 GHz for the i3, but boost clocks flip the advantage: the i3 reaches 3.90 GHz, while the Xeon tops out at 2.93 GHz. The i3’s boost clock is 0.97 GHz higher, which is a critical factor in its benchmark wins.

Thermal design power differs dramatically. The Xeon E5640 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the i3-1115GRE is rated at 15 watts. This makes the i3 far more power-efficient, a major consideration for mobile or compact systems. The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the i3 uses Intel BGA 1449, meaning they cannot be swapped in the same motherboard.

Memory support varies as well. The Xeon supports DDR3 with a triple-channel bus, while the i3 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X with a dual-channel bus. The i3’s PCIe implementation is newer (Gen 4 with 4 lanes on the CPU), versus the Xeon’s Gen 2. The i3 also includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics G4 48EU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed.

Process node and physical dimensions differ. The Xeon is built on a 32 nm process with a die size of 239 mm² and 1,170 million transistors. The i3 uses a 10 nm process with a die size of 144 mm²; its transistor count is not recorded. The i3’s smaller die on a newer node contributes to its efficiency and higher clocks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The Xeon E5640 is based on the Westmere-EP architecture (codename Westmere-EP), part of the Xeon Westmere-EP generation. The i3-1115GRE uses Tiger Lake, specifically the Tiger Lake-U codename, under the Core i3 Willow Cove-U generation. This is roughly a decade of silicon evolution between the 2010 Xeon and the 2020 i3.

Cache layouts reflect the design philosophies. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a 12 MB shared L3. The i3 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with a 6 MB shared L3. The i3’s larger per-core L2 (1.25 MB vs 256 KB) is a significant architectural improvement, reducing latency for frequently accessed data. The Xeon’s larger L3 (12 MB vs 6 MB) helps with multi-threaded workloads across its eight threads, but it cannot compensate for the i3’s other advantages.

The i3’s 10 nm process node is a major architectural leap over the Xeon’s 32 nm. This allows for higher clock speeds at a fraction of the power draw. The i3’s boost clock of 3.90 GHz, achieved on a 15-watt TDP, highlights the efficiency gains. The Xeon, with an 80-watt TDP, cannot reach similar clocks despite consuming over five times the power.

Memory controllers also reflect different eras. The Xeon’s triple-channel DDR3 support is a server-oriented feature that provides high bandwidth for its time. The i3’s dual-channel DDR4/LPDDR4X support offers newer memory types with higher per-channel bandwidth. ECC support is present on both, a rare feature for a mobile i3, which suggests the i3-1115GRE is positioned for edge or embedded workloads where data integrity matters.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i3-1115GRE is the superior processor for Cinebench-based workloads. It wins every head-to-head test, with margins between 15.3% and 15.6%. The data indicates that users who need fast single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering performance should choose the i3-1115GRE without hesitation. Its 15-watt TDP and integrated graphics also make it suitable for compact, power-sensitive systems.

The Intel Xeon E5640, despite its higher core count and larger L3 cache, cannot keep pace. Its only recorded advantage is a marginally higher average benchmark score (1137 vs 1127), which likely comes from tests outside the Cinebench suite. In the measured head-to-head comparisons, the Xeon trails by a consistent margin. Its 80-watt TDP and Socket 1366 platform are outdated, and its 32 nm process limits clock speeds to 2.93 GHz.

For a server or workstation environment where the Xeon’s triple-channel memory and multi-socket capabilities might matter, the data shows no performance benefit in Cinebench. The i3-1115GRE, with its newer architecture, higher boost clock, and superior efficiency, is the pick for anyone prioritizing benchmark scores. The Xeon E5640 remains a legacy part, outperformed by a mobile chip released a decade later. The verdict is clear: choose the i3-1115GRE for performance, and reserve the Xeon for platforms that specifically require its older socket and server features.