Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Xeon E5450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5450 wins every recorded head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i3-3240. Across all five shared tests, the Xeon E5450 holds a lead of approximately 9% in multi-core workloads and a similar margin in single-core tests.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon E5450 scores 221 against the Core i3-3240's 201, a 9% advantage. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Xeon E5450 posts 923 versus 840 for the Core i3-3240, again a 9% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the Xeon E5450 at 2198 while the Core i3-3240 reaches 2000, maintaining the consistent 9% delta.

Single-core results follow the same trend, though the margin is slightly wider in one test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon E5450 scores 130 against 118 for the Core i3-3240, a 9.2% difference, the largest recorded gap in the head-to-head set. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Xeon E5450 at 310 versus 282 for the Core i3-3240, a 9% difference.

The aggregate benchmark data echoes these results. The Core i3-3240 has an average benchmark score of 761 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon E5450 averages 756. The two CPUs sit side by side in the database's overall rankings, both at the 20th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the Core i3-3240 include the AMD A8-6600K at 764 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Core i5-3210M at 758 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 (0.5% behind). Notably, the Intel Xeon E5450 itself appears in the Core i3-3240's rival list with an average score of 756, a 0.6% delta. For the Xeon E5450, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-4250U at 756 (0% delta), the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-3230M at 754 (0.2% behind).

What the head-to-head numbers reveal is that the Xeon E5450's advantage is not a single-test anomaly but a consistent pattern across both multi-core and single-core rendering workloads. The Core i3-3240, despite its newer architecture and higher clock speed, trails in every measured category. The largest single-core gap, 9.2% in Cinebench R20, suggests the Xeon E5450's per-thread performance is genuinely competitive, not merely a product of having more physical cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E5450 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests. It leads in Cinebench R15 multicore (221 vs 201), R20 multicore (923 vs 840), R20 single-core (130 vs 118), R23 multicore (2198 vs 2000), and R23 single-core (310 vs 282).

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two CPUs?

A: The Xeon E5450's advantage ranges from 9% to 9.2% depending on the test. Four of the five head-to-head results show a 9% delta, while Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 9.2% delta.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Core i3-3240 has an average benchmark score of 761 across all recorded tests. The Xeon E5450 has an average benchmark score of 756. Both sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Core i3-3240 win any benchmark category?

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Core i3-3240 in the head-to-head comparisons. The Xeon E5450 records wins in all five shared tests.

Q: How do these processors compare to their respective nearest rivals?

A: The Core i3-3240's closest rival is the AMD A8-6600K, which scores 764, a 0.3% delta. The Xeon E5450's closest rival is the Intel Core i5-4250U, which scores 756, a 0% delta. Both CPUs are tightly clustered with other mid-range processors in the 754 to 764 range.

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

A: The Xeon E5450 scores 310 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Core i3-3240 scores 282. This represents a 9% advantage for the Xeon E5450.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras and target different market segments. The Intel Core i3-3240 is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, a 22 nm process from Intel, and is classified under the Core i3 (Ivy Bridge) generation. It features 2 physical cores with 4 threads, indicating Hyper-Threading support. The Xeon E5450, by contrast, is built on the Core 2 architecture with the codename Harpertown, manufactured on a 45 nm process, and belongs to the Xeon (Harpertown) generation. It offers 4 physical cores with 4 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading.

The transistor count and die size differ substantially. The Xeon E5450 contains 820 million transistors across a die size of 2x 107 mm², reflecting its dual-die design. The Core i3-3240's die size is 94 mm², and no transistor count is recorded in the database. The process node difference, 22 nm for the Core i3-3240 versus 45 nm for the Xeon E5450, is a major architectural gap, with the newer process allowing for denser and more power-efficient transistors.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The Core i3-3240 has 256 KB of L2 cache per core and a 3 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon E5450 has 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache recorded. This means the Xeon relies on a larger L2 cache distributed across its two dies, while the Core i3-3240 uses a smaller per-core L2 but adds a shared L3.

Memory support differs in scope. The Core i3-3240 supports DDR3 memory only, while the Xeon E5450 supports DDR2 and DDR3, depending on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses. ECC memory support is another differentiator: the Core i3-3240 does not support ECC, while the Xeon E5450 does, consistent with its server and workstation market segment.

PCI Express capabilities also differ. The Core i3-3240 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon E5450 supports PCIe Gen 2. The Core i3-3240 includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 2500, whereas the Xeon E5450 has no integrated graphics recorded. The market segments reflect this: the Core i3-3240 is a desktop part, while the Xeon E5450 is aimed at servers and workstations.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Core i3-3240 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E5450 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 3.40 GHz for the Core i3-3240 and 3.00 GHz for the Xeon E5450. Neither processor has a boost clock recorded, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the Core i3-3240 is rated at 55 W, while the Xeon E5450 is rated at 80 W. This reflects the Xeon's older process node and higher core count. Sockets are incompatible: the Core i3-3240 uses Intel Socket 1155, while the Xeon E5450 uses Intel Socket 771.

The release dates show a generation gap. The Core i3-3240 was released on 2012-09-02, while the Xeon E5450 was released on 2007-11-10. The Xeon E5450 is marked as end-of-life in the database, while no production status is recorded for the Core i3-3240. Part numbers are SR0RH for the Core i3-3240 and SLANQSLBBM for the Xeon E5450. The Xeon E5450 has a launch MSRP of $915; the Core i3-3240 has no launch MSRP recorded.

The Xeon E5450 supports ECC memory, while the Core i3-3240 does not. The Core i3-3240 includes Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics; the Xeon E5450 has none. Process nodes are 22 nm for the Core i3-3240 and 45 nm for the Xeon E5450. The Xeon E5450 has a larger die footprint at 2x 107 mm² versus 94 mm² for the Core i3-3240, and it carries 820 million transistors compared to no recorded count for the Core i3-3240.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5450 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. Its 9% lead across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests, is consistent and substantial. The Xeon E5450's 4 physical cores give it an advantage in multi-threaded workloads, but its single-core wins show that the older architecture is not merely compensating with core count; it is genuinely faster per thread in these tests.

The Core i3-3240's newer 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture and higher 3.40 GHz base clock do not translate into a performance win in the recorded benchmarks. Its 2 cores with 4 threads, while augmented by Hyper-Threading, cannot match the Xeon E5450's raw throughput in Cinebench workloads. The Core i3-3240 does offer advantages in platform features: integrated graphics, PCIe Gen 3 support, a lower 55 W TDP, and a smaller 94 mm² die. These are meaningful for desktop builds where power efficiency and onboard graphics matter.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in rendering workloads, the Xeon E5450 is the clear choice based on the data. Its consistent 9% lead in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, combined with ECC memory support and a server-grade pedigree, makes it suitable for workstation-style tasks. The Xeon E5450's end-of-life status and higher 80 W TDP are caveats, but the benchmark results do not show the Core i3-3240 closing the gap in any test.

For users building a desktop system with integrated graphics, lower power consumption, and a modern socket, the Core i3-3240 has platform advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. The database records no wins for the Core i3-3240 in compute tests, but its feature set addresses a different use case. The choice ultimately depends on whether the user's priority is raw multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering performance, where the Xeon E5450 leads, or platform integration and efficiency, where the Core i3-3240 offers distinct benefits.

The aggregate scores confirm the closeness of these two parts in overall standing: both sit at the 20th percentile, with average scores of 761 and 756 respectively. The head-to-head results, however, show that the Xeon E5450's performance is more consistent in the specific Cinebench workloads tested. Users who rely on these rendering benchmarks should expect the Xeon E5450 to deliver roughly 9% higher scores across the board.