CPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear generational clash: the Intel Core i3-N300 wins four of the five head-to-head tests, but the Intel Xeon E5640 claims the single most demanding multi-threaded workload. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 1137 for the Xeon versus 1135 for the i3-N300, placing both at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs. However, the distribution of wins tells a more nuanced story than the aggregate suggests, with the i3-N300 dominating in most scenarios while the aging Xeon shows a surprising edge in the newest Cinebench iteration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Intel Core i3-N300 comes in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where it scores 2849 against the Xeon E5640’s 1387. This represents a 51.3% advantage, meaning the i3-N300 delivers more than double the multi-threaded performance in that specific test. The single-core R20 result is equally lopsided: the i3-N300 posts 401 points versus 195 for the Xeon, a 51.4% margin. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they demonstrate that the modern Gracemont architecture simply outclasses the older Westmere design in memory-latency-sensitive and lightly-threaded workloads.

The i3-N300 also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 416 against the Xeon’s 332, a 20.2% advantage. This test, while older, still reflects real-world rendering performance, and the 84-point gap is substantial. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3-N300 again takes the lead with 513 points versus 466, a 9.2% margin. While this is the smallest percentage win for the i3-N300, it still represents a clear advantage in single-threaded responsiveness, which matters for everyday tasks and lightly-threaded applications.

The one bright spot for the Intel Xeon E5640 is Cinebench R23 multi-core. Here, the Xeon scores 3303 against the i3-N300’s 2546, a 29.7% victory. This is the only test where the older processor wins, but it is also the most recent and arguably the most demanding render workload in the dataset. The Xeon’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache and 8 threads appear to give it a staying power that the i3-N300’s 6 MB L3 cannot match in this specific scenario, despite the i3-N300 having twice the core count.

When looking at the broader rival landscape, both CPUs sit within a hair of each other. The Xeon E5640’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-2550K and i5-3570T, both with an average score of 1136, putting them just 0.1% behind the Xeon. The AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE is 0.1% ahead at 1138. The i3-N300’s nearest rivals are the same chips: the i5-3570T and i5-2550K at 1136 (0.1% ahead), the Xeon E5640 at 1137 (0.1% ahead), and the Athlon Silver PRO at 1138 (0.3% ahead). This means that while the head-to-head tests show dramatic swings, the overall computing profile of these two processors is remarkably similar to a cluster of mid-range CPUs from the early 2010s.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i3-N300 as the better overall processor for the vast majority of users. It wins four out of five benchmark comparisons, including the modern Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests, and it does so with dramatically lower power consumption, 7 watts TDP versus 80 watts for the Xeon. The i3-N300 also supports newer memory standards (DDR4 and DDR5) and includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. For anyone building a system today, the i3-N300 is the rational choice.

However, the Intel Xeon E5640 is not without its niche. Its 29.7% victory in Cinebench R23 multi-core is not a fluke; it reflects a real architectural strength in sustained, heavily-threaded rendering workloads. The Xeon’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache and triple-channel DDR3 memory bus provide a memory bandwidth advantage that the i3-N300’s single-channel configuration cannot match, even with faster memory generations. For a user running specifically Cinebench R23 or similar long-duration multi-threaded renders, the Xeon would be the better performer.

The verdict depends on the workload. If the primary use case is modern application performance, single-threaded speed, or energy efficiency, the i3-N300 wins decisively. If the workload is exclusively heavy multi-threaded rendering that resembles Cinebench R23, the Xeon’s larger cache and memory subsystem give it an edge. But given that the i3-N300 also wins Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, the Xeon’s advantage appears isolated to the R23 version of the test, making the i3-N300 the safer all-around pick.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-N300 wins in scenarios that benefit from high single-core clock speeds and modern instruction efficiency. Its boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus the Xeon’s 2.93 GHz gives it a 26% clock advantage, and the Gracemont architecture’s newer design shows in the 51.4% single-core R20 lead. This makes the i3-N300 the better choice for everyday desktop tasks, web browsing, office productivity, and any application that is not fully threaded. Its 8 cores and 8 threads also handle lightly-threaded multi-tasking well, as evidenced by the 20.2% win in R15 multi-core and the 51.3% win in R20 multi-core.

The Intel Xeon E5640 wins in a very specific niche: the Cinebench R23 multi-core workload. Its 3303 score versus 2546 is a 757-point difference, which is significant for render farms or users who rely on this specific benchmark as a proxy for their rendering software. The Xeon’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache is double the i3-N300’s 6 MB, and its triple-channel memory bus provides more aggregate memory bandwidth than the i3-N300’s single-channel setup, despite the latter supporting faster DDR5 memory. This combination of large cache and wide memory interface appears to be what gives the Xeon its edge in this one test.

The i3-N300 also wins on platform features. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, has integrated UHD Graphics 770, and uses a PCIe Gen 3 interface with 9 lanes. The Xeon is limited to DDR3, has no integrated graphics, and uses PCIe Gen 2. For a modern system, the i3-N300’s platform support is far more relevant, even if its single-channel memory bus is a theoretical bottleneck in some workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 has an average benchmark score of 1137, while the Intel Core i3-N300 scores 1135. This is a 0.2% difference, placing the Xeon slightly ahead in the aggregate.

Q: How much faster is the i3-N300 in Cinebench R20 single-core?

A: The i3-N300 scores 401 in Cinebench R20 single-core, while the Xeon E5640 scores 195. This gives the i3-N300 a 51.4% advantage, making it more than twice as fast in this test.

Q: Does the Xeon E5640 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5640 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 3303, which is 29.7% higher than the i3-N300’s 2546. This is the only head-to-head test the Xeon wins.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the Intel Core i3-N300 has a TDP of 7 watts. The i3-N300 uses over 90% less power by this metric.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i3-N300 does not. This makes the Xeon more suitable for server or workstation environments where memory error correction is critical.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 was released on 2010-03-15, while the Intel Core i3-N300 was released on 2023-01-02. This is a gap of nearly 13 years between the two architectures.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras of Intel design. The Intel Xeon E5640 uses the Westmere architecture, specifically Westmere-EP, built on a 32 nm process node. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-N300 uses the Gracemont architecture, part of the Alder Lake-N generation, built on a 10 nm process node. This process shrink allows the i3-N300 to achieve higher efficiency, as reflected in its 7 watt TDP versus the Xeon’s 80 watts.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Xeon E5640 has 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to double its thread count. The i3-N300 has 8 cores and 8 threads, with no Hyper-Threading. This means the i3-N300 has twice the physical cores but the same thread count as the Xeon, which explains why it wins in some multi-threaded tests but loses in others that favor larger caches.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The Xeon E5640 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-N300 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per module, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache is double the i3-N300’s, which is a key factor in its Cinebench R23 multi-core victory. The i3-N300’s larger L1 and per-module L2 suggest it is optimized for faster access to frequently used data, but the overall cache capacity is smaller.

Memory support also diverges. The Xeon E5640 supports DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, while the i3-N300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel bus and a specified bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon’s triple-channel setup provides wider memory access, but the i3-N300’s support for newer, faster memory standards partially compensates. The Xeon also has ECC memory support, which the i3-N300 lacks, and the i3-N300 includes integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the Xeon has none.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is core count: the i3-N300 has 8 cores versus the Xeon E5640’s 4 cores. Both have 8 threads, so the thread count is identical, but the physical core arrangement differs. The base clock also diverges wildly: the i3-N300 lists a base clock of 100.00 GHz, which is an unusual reading in the data, while the Xeon’s base clock is 2.67 GHz. The boost clocks are more comparable, with the i3-N300 at 3.70 GHz and the Xeon at 2.93 GHz.

The TDP is a major differentiator: the i3-N300 draws 7 watts versus the Xeon’s 80 watts, a massive efficiency gap. The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the i3-N300 uses Intel BGA 1264. The process nodes differ at 32 nm for the Xeon and 10 nm for the i3-N300. Memory support is also distinct: the Xeon uses DDR3 with triple-channel access, while the i3-N300 uses DDR4 and DDR5 with single-channel access and a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon E5640. The i3-N300 has integrated UHD Graphics 770, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon uses Gen 2, while the i3-N300 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon has a specified die size of 239 mm² and transistor count of 1,170 million, while the i3-N300 does not list these figures. Production status is another contrast: the Xeon is end-of-life, while the i3-N300 is active. The market segments are also split, with the Xeon aimed at Server/Workstation and the i3-N300 at Mobile. The i3-N300 has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Xeon has no listed launch MSRP.