Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Xeon E5520 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unusually one-sided in this matchup. Across all five recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel Xeon E5520 wins outright. The Intel Core i3-3240 does not claim a single victory in any Cinebench workload, whether single-core or multi-core.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon E5520 scores 217 against the i3-3240's 201, a delta of -7.4% from the i3's perspective. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 905 for the Xeon versus 840 for the i3, again a -7.2% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 2155 versus 2000, also -7.2%. The margins are remarkably consistent across render workloads, hovering just above seven percent in favor of the older server chip.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon E5520 posts 127 against the i3-3240's 118, a -7.1% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core gives the Xeon 304 versus the i3's 282, a -7.2% difference. The i3-3240, despite its higher base clock and newer architecture, cannot close the gap in raw rendering throughput.

It is worth noting the i3-3240's Geekbench results are recorded in the database: 650 single-core and 1233 multi-core. The Xeon E5520 has no Geekbench entries in the dataset, so those scores cannot be compared directly. The Cinebench suite, however, paints a consistent picture: the Xeon E5520 holds a steady advantage of roughly seven percent in every rendered workload tested, both single-threaded and multi-threaded.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The i3-3240 has an average score of 761, while the Xeon E5520 averages 742. That puts the i3 ahead by about 2.5% in overall average performance across all recorded benchmarks, despite losing every Cinebench head-to-head. The reason is the i3's Geekbench results, which are not matched by the Xeon in the database. Both processors sit in the 20th percentile of all CPUs, meaning neither stands out in the broader performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras. The i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process node. The Xeon E5520 uses the Nehalem architecture, codename Gainestown, on a 45 nm node. The process shrink is substantial, and it shows in the die size: the i3's die measures 94 mm², while the Xeon's die is 263 mm². The Xeon also carries 731 million transistors, a figure not listed for the i3.

Core counts differ as expected. The i3-3240 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon E5520 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Both support multi-threading, but the Xeon has twice the physical core count and twice the logical thread count. Cache hierarchies reflect this difference. The i3 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 3 MB of shared L3. The Xeon also has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 is 8 MB, more than double the i3's capacity.

The base clocks tell a different story. The i3-3240 runs at 3.40 GHz with no boost clock listed. The Xeon E5520 has a base clock of 2.27 GHz and a boost clock of 2.53 GHz. Even at full boost, the Xeon's top frequency is far below the i3's fixed base clock, yet the Xeon still wins in single-core Cinebench tests, a credit to its architecture.

Memory support also separates the two. Both accept DDR3, but the i3 uses dual-channel memory while the Xeon uses triple-channel. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature the i3 lacks. The i3 has integrated graphics (Intel HD 2500), while the Xeon has none. PCIe generations differ, with the i3 supporting Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and the Xeon supporting Gen 2. The i3 uses Intel Socket 1155; the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366.

The market segments show the intended use cases: the i3 is a Desktop part, the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part. The Xeon is listed as end-of-life production status. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are Intel-based on a 22nm node for the i3 and 45nm for the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5520 wins in every Cinebench scenario recorded in the database. Multi-core workloads favor the Xeon's 4-core, 8-thread configuration. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon is 7.4% ahead of the i3. In R20 multi-core, the gap is 7.2%. In R23 multi-core, it is 7.2% as well. The Xeon's extra cores and threads translate into consistent multi-threaded victories, with margins that are stable across rendering generations.

What is more surprising is the Xeon's single-core advantage. Despite a 0.87 GHz base clock deficit and a boost clock that is still 0.83 GHz below the i3's fixed clock, the Xeon E5520 wins single-core Cinebench R20 by 7.1% and Cinebench R23 by 7.2%. The Nehalem architecture, for its age, is evidently efficient enough per-clock to compensate for the frequency difference. This makes the Xeon the stronger choice for any workload that relies on per-thread performance in the Cinebench suite.

The i3-3240 does have a counterpoint in the database through its Geekbench scores. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 1233 and single-core score of 650 are recorded. The Xeon has no Geekbench results in the dataset, so a direct comparison is impossible, but the i3's average benchmark score of 761 edges out the Xeon's 752. That means the i3's overall average across all recorded tests is higher, despite losing the Cinebench suite. The i3 also has integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks, so for a system without a discrete GPU, the i3 is the only option that can produce a display output from the CPU alone.

For rendering tasks in Cinebench, the Xeon is the clear winner. For a mixed-use desktop processor with integrated graphics and a higher average score, the i3 holds its own. The Xeon's advantage is narrow (around 7%) but consistent, and the i3's advantage in average score is also narrow (around 2.5%). Neither processor dominates the other across all metrics, but the Xeon wins the benchmark suite that has direct head-to-head results.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specifications, all listed in the database.

• Cores: i3-3240 has 2 cores; Xeon E5520 has 4 cores.
• Threads: 4 threads for the i3; 8 threads for the Xeon.
• Base clock: 3.40 GHz vs 2.27 GHz.
• Boost clock: None for the i3; 2.53 GHz for the Xeon.
• TDP: 55 W for the i3; 80 W for the Xeon.
• Socket: Intel Socket 1155 vs Intel Socket 1366.
• Architecture: Ivy Bridge vs Nehalem (codename Gainestown).
• Process node: 22 nm vs 45 nm.
• Transistors: Not listed for the i3; 731 million for the Xeon.
• Die size: 94 mm² vs 263 mm².
• L3 cache: 3 MB (shared) vs 8 MB (shared).
• Memory bus: Dual-channel vs triple-channel.
• ECC memory: Not supported on the i3; supported on the Xeon.
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) vs Gen 2.
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 2500 on the i3; none on the Xeon.
• Market segment: Desktop vs Server/Workstation.
• Production status: Not listed for the i3; end-of-life for the Xeon.
• Release date: The i3 released in September of 2012; the Xeon released in March of 2009.
• Part number: SR0RH for the i3; SLBFD for the Xeon.
• Multiplier unlocked: false for both.

The memory support field for both shows "DDR3" without a bandwidth number, so no comparison is possible there. Both have the same L1 and L2 cache sizes per core. Neither has a listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Xeon E5520 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 217 in R15 multi-core versus the i3-3240's 201, 905 in R20 multi-core versus 840, and 2155 in R23 multi-core versus 2000. The delta is -7.2% to -7.4% from the i3's perspective.

Q: Does the i3-3240 ever beat the Xeon E5520 in any benchmark?

A: In the head-to-head Cinebench suite, no. The Xeon wins all five tests (three multi-core, two single-core). However, the i3-3240 has a higher average benchmark score of 761 versus the Xeon's 752, driven by its Geekbench results of 650 single-core and 1233 multi-core, which the Xeon does not have recorded.

Q: Why does the Xeon win single-core tests despite a lower clock speed?

A: The Xeon E5520 has a base clock of 2.27 GHz and a boost clock of 2.53 GHz, while the i3-3240 runs at 3.40 GHz. Still, the Xeon scores 304 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the i3's 282, a 7.2% margin. The architecture (Nehalem vs Ivy Bridge) and the Xeon's larger 8 MB shared L3 cache likely contribute, though the exact causes are not in the data.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The i3-3240 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon E5520 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon has double the physical cores and threads.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5520 supports ECC memory. The i3-3240 does not. Both use DDR3, but the Xeon uses triple-channel memory, the i3 uses dual-channel.

Q: Is the i3-3240 a desktop processor with graphics?

A: Yes, the i3-3240 is a Desktop segment part with integrated Intel HD 2500 graphics. The Xeon E5520 is a Server/Workstation part with no integrated graphics.