Intel Core i3-3240 vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent performance advantage for the Intel Xeon X5460 across every shared benchmark test. The Xeon wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with the Core i3-3240 trailing by margins between 8.5% and 8.7%. This is not a narrow victory; it is a uniform pattern of superiority in both multi-core and single-core workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon X5460 scores 220 against the Core i3-3240's 201, a delta of 8.6%. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 920 versus 840, a margin of 8.7%. The R23 multi-core test shows the Xeon at 2191 against 2000, again 8.7% ahead. These multi-core results are notable because the Core i3-3240 has hyper-threading, giving it 4 threads on 2 cores, while the Xeon X5460 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads. Despite the thread count parity, the Xeon's additional physical cores deliver a measurable edge in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core performance follows the same direction. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon X5460 scores 129 versus 118 for the Core i3-3240, a delta of 8.5%. In R23 single-core, the Xeon reaches 309 against 282, a delta of 8.7%. This is a meaningful finding because the Core i3-3240 is built on a much newer process node and architecture, yet it still loses in single-threaded tests. The Xeon's higher base clock of 3.17 GHz, combined with its older Core 2 architecture, evidently translates into faster single-thread execution than the Ivy Bridge-based Core i3 at 3.40 GHz. The fact that the newer chip cannot overcome the per-core performance gap suggests that architectural efficiency differences are substantial.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Core i3-3240 averages 761 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Xeon X5460 averages 754. These average scores are close, but the head-to-head results are not. The discrepancy arises because the average includes different benchmark suites for each processor; the Xeon lacks Geekbench results in the database, while the Core i3 includes both Geekbench multi-core and single-core scores. When directly compared on the same Cinebench tests, the Xeon is consistently ahead.

The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3230M at a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core i5-4250U at -0.2%, and the Intel Xeon E5450 at -0.3%. This places the X5460 in a tight competitive cluster where scores differ by less than one percent. The Core i3-3240's nearest rivals include the AMD A8-6600K at -0.3%, the Core i5-3210M at 0.4%, and the Core i3-5020U at 0.5%. Both processors sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database, indicating they occupy similar overall performance tiers despite the Xeon's advantage in the shared Cinebench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 wins with a score of 2191 against the Core i3-3240's 2000, a margin of 8.7%.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon X5460 leads in both recorded single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core it scores 129 versus 118, and in R23 single-core it scores 309 versus 282, a delta of 8.7% in both cases.

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

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Core i3-3240 across the five shared Cinebench tests. The Xeon X5460 wins all five.

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

A: The Core i3-3240 has an average benchmark score of 761, while the Xeon X5460 averages 754. The Xeon is ahead in direct comparisons, but the Core i3 has a slightly higher average because the two have different benchmark suites recorded.

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

A: The Core i3-3240 is within 0.5% of the AMD A8-6600K, the Intel Core i5-3210M, and the Intel Core i3-5020U. The Xeon X5460 is within 0.4% of the Intel Core i5-3230M, the Intel Core i5-4250U, and the Intel Xeon E5450. Both sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon X5460 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-3240 does not support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Core i3-3240 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process node, with a die size of 94 mm². The Xeon X5460 uses the Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown, on a 45 nm process node with a die size of 2x 107 mm². The Core i3 is a dual-core design with 4 threads thanks to hyper-threading, while the Xeon is a quad-core design with 4 threads and no hyper-threading. The Xeon's transistor count is listed at 820 million, while the Core i3's transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Cache configurations differ as well. The Core i3-3240 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon X5460 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache recorded. This means the Core i3 relies on a shared L3 cache for inter-core communication, while the Xeon uses a large per-die L2 cache in a dual-die package.

Memory support also diverges. The Core i3-3240 supports DDR3 memory only, while the Xeon X5460 supports DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Core i3 has integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 2500, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, consistent with its server and workstation market segment. PCIe support differs too: the Core i3 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon offers Gen 2.

The Core i3-3240 is a desktop part from the Core i3 generation, while the Xeon X5460 is a server and workstation part from the Xeon generation. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the Core i3's production status is not recorded. The Xeon's launch date is 2007-11-10, while the Core i3's release date is 2012-09-02. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: The Core i3-3240 has 2 cores, the Xeon X5460 has 4 cores.
• Threads: The Core i3-3240 has 4 threads, the Xeon X5460 has 4 threads. The thread count is the same, but the Core i3 achieves it through hyper-threading on 2 cores.
• Base clock: The Core i3-3240 runs at 3.40 GHz, the Xeon X5460 at 3.17 GHz.
• TDP: The Core i3-3240 has a TDP of 55, the Xeon X5460 has a TDP of 120.
• Socket: The Core i3-3240 uses Intel Socket 1155, the Xeon X5460 uses Intel Socket 771.
• Process node: The Core i3-3240 is on 22 nm, the Xeon X5460 on 45 nm.
• Die size: The Core i3-3240 is 94 mm², the Xeon X5460 is 2x 107 mm².
• Transistors: The Core i3-3240 has no recorded transistor count, the Xeon X5460 has 820 million.
• L2 cache: The Core i3-3240 has 256 KB per core, the Xeon X5460 has 6 MB per die.
• L3 cache: The Core i3-3240 has 3 MB shared, the Xeon X5460 has none.
• Memory support: The Core i3-3240 supports DDR3, the Xeon X5460 supports DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard.
• ECC memory: The Core i3-3240 does not support ECC, the Xeon X5460 does.
• PCIe: The Core i3-3240 is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, the Xeon X5460 is Gen 2.
• Integrated graphics: The Core i3-3240 has Intel HD 2500, the Xeon X5460 has none.
• Market segment: The Core i3-3240 is desktop, the Xeon X5460 is server and workstation.
• Production status: The Core i3-3240 is not recorded, the Xeon X5460 is end-of-life.
• Release date: The Core i3-3240 released 2012-09-02, the Xeon X5460 released 2007-11-10.
• Launch MSRP: The Xeon X5460 has a launch MSRP of $1172. The Core i3-3240 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the Intel Xeon X5460 beats the Intel Core i3-3240 in every shared benchmark. The margins are consistent, ranging from 8.5% to 8.7%, and they apply to both single-core and multi-core workloads. For users whose primary concern is raw Cinebench rendering performance, the Xeon is the better choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, the Xeon's advantages come with trade-offs. It draws more than twice the power, with a TDP of 120 against the Core i3's 55. It requires a different socket, Intel Socket 771, compared to the Core i3's Socket 1155, so platform compatibility is a deciding factor. The Xeon lacks integrated graphics, meaning a discrete GPU is mandatory. It also relies on an older platform with PCIe Gen 2 and DDR2 or DDR3 memory support depending on the motherboard. The Core i3, by contrast, offers PCIe Gen 3, DDR3 support, integrated graphics, and a much smaller process node and die size.

The Core i3-3240 is not without merit. It delivers competitive average benchmark scores, with an average of 761 against the Xeon's 754, and its nearest rivals include chips like the AMD A8-6600K and the Intel Core i5-3210M, all within half a percent. Its lower TDP and integrated graphics make it a more practical choice for a desktop system where power efficiency and simplicity matter. The Xeon's ECC memory support is a meaningful feature for server or workstation use, while the Core i3's lack of ECC support is a limitation for those seeking data integrity in memory-intensive workloads.

The verdict depends on the use case. For rendering tasks where the exact Cinebench workloads in the database are representative, the Xeon X5460 is the stronger processor, offering 8.7% higher scores across the board. For a desktop build that prioritizes lower power draw, integrated graphics, and a modern socket, the Core i3-3240 is the more balanced option. Both processors sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a high-end part by current standards, but within this pairing, the Xeon holds the performance crown while the Core i3 offers the more versatile and efficient platform.