CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-2600S and the Intel Xeon E5640 are both end-of-life, 4-core, 8-thread Intel processors from the early 2010s, but they target very different platforms and use cases. The i7-2600S is a 65W desktop chip on Socket 1155 with a Sandy Bridge architecture, while the Xeon E5640 is an 80W server/workstation part on Socket 1366 with a Westmere-EP architecture. Benchmark data shows the i7-2600S winning all five shared head-to-head tests by roughly 19%, making it the clear performance pick for most workloads, though the Xeon’s triple-channel memory and ECC support give it a niche in specific server scenarios.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core i7-2600S than the Intel Xeon E5640 in multi-core workloads?

A: The i7-2600S leads by 19.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (396 vs 332), 19% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1651 vs 1387), and 19.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (3933 vs 3303). All head-to-head results show the i7-2600S winning by a consistent margin.

Q: Does the Xeon E5640 have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The i7-2600S wins single-core tests by 19.5% in Cinebench R20 (233 vs 195) and 19.1% in Cinebench R23 (555 vs 466). The Xeon’s lower boost clock of 2.93 GHz versus 3.80 GHz on the i7-2600S explains this gap.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5640 supports ECC memory, with a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus. The Intel Core i7-2600S does not support ECC and uses a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The i7-2600S uses Intel Socket 1155, while the Xeon E5640 uses Intel Socket 1366. They are not interchangeable between platforms.

Q: What are the integrated graphics options?

A: The i7-2600S includes Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5640 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the i7-2600S more suitable for builds without a discrete GPU.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-2600S has an average benchmark score of 1146, while the Xeon E5640 scores 1137. Both sit at the 32nd percentile among all CPUs, and their nearest rivals have nearly identical average scores, indicating they are both mid-pack performers.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-2600S wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with deltas between 19% and 19.5%. Pick the i7-2600S if you need the best possible performance in Cinebench-style multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads, if you want integrated graphics, or if you prefer the lower 65W TDP. Its higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 2.93 GHz gives it a decisive edge in every test.

Pick the Intel Xeon E5640 only if your workload absolutely requires ECC memory support or triple-channel DDR3 bandwidth. The Xeon’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache (versus 8 MB on the i7) and its server/workstation market segment suggest a different design philosophy, but in raw compute benchmarks, it trails consistently. The Xeon is also the older release (March 2010 vs January 2011) and carries a higher 80W TDP, offering no efficiency benefit. For general desktop or workstation use, the i7-2600S is the straightforward choice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i7-2600S dominates every shared benchmark, with margins that are remarkably uniform across different Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-2600S scores 396 against the Xeon’s 332, a 19.3% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core: 1651 vs 1387, a 19% delta. The largest single margin comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i7-2600S hits 233 versus 195, a 19.5% lead.

Single-core performance tells the same story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i7-2600S scores 555 while the Xeon manages 466, a 19.1% gap. The multi-core version of that test shows 3933 vs 3303, again a 19.1% delta. The consistency of these numbers, all between 19% and 19.5%, suggests a fundamental clock-speed and architectural advantage for the i7-2600S rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Xeon never wins a single benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its best relative showing is a 19% deficit in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and its worst is the 19.5% deficit in Cinebench R20 single-core. There is no test where the Xeon’s larger 12 MB L3 cache or triple-channel memory interface translates into a measurable win in these Cinebench workloads.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every specification field that matters. The i7-2600S has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Xeon E5640 runs at 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost. That 0.87 GHz boost clock gap is the single biggest differentiator and explains the consistent benchmark margins.

Power and platform differ significantly. The i7-2600S is a 65W desktop part on Socket 1155 with dual-channel DDR3 memory and no ECC support. The Xeon E5640 is an 80W server/workstation part on Socket 1366 with triple-channel DDR3 and full ECC memory support. The i7-2600S also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 2. Integrated graphics exist only on the i7-2600S (Intel HD 2000); the Xeon has none.

Cache configurations differ in L3 size: the i7-2600S has 8 MB shared, the Xeon E5640 has 12 MB shared. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. Transistor counts are nearly identical (1,160 million vs 1,170 million), but die size is slightly larger on the Xeon at 239 mm² versus 216 mm². Both are 32 nm parts from Intel, locked multipliers, and end-of-life production status.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear: the i7-2600S uses Sandy Bridge, while the Xeon E5640 uses Westmere-EP. Both are built on Intel’s 32 nm process, but they represent different design generations and market intents. Sandy Bridge is a desktop-first architecture with integrated graphics and a unified memory controller, while Westmere-EP is a server/ workstation design focused on memory bandwidth and reliability features.

The cache hierarchy reflects these goals. The Xeon’s 12 MB shared L3 cache is 50% larger than the i7-2600S’s 8 MB, which typically benefits server workloads with larger working sets. However, in the Cinebench tests in the data, this larger cache does not overcome the i7’s clock advantage. The transistor counts are nearly identical (1,160 vs 1,170 million), but the Xeon’s die is 23 mm² larger, likely due to the extra cache and ECC logic.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The i7-2600S runs dual-channel DDR3, while the Xeon E5640 runs triple-channel DDR3. The Xeon also supports ECC, a feature absent on the i7. These differences make the Xeon better suited for error-sensitive server tasks, but they do not show up as a performance advantage in the Cinebench benchmarks. The i7-2600S’s PCIe Gen 3 support is a generational step ahead of the Xeon’s Gen 2, offering more modern expansion capability.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-2600S wins in every measured performance category. It is faster in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, with margins of 19% to 19.5%. It also wins on efficiency with a 65W TDP versus 80W, and it offers integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. For desktop users, content creators running Cinebench-style render workloads, or anyone building a Socket 1155 system, the i7-2600S is the clear winner.

The Xeon E5640 wins only in platform-specific features, not in raw benchmark scores. Its triple-channel memory bus provides higher theoretical memory bandwidth, and its ECC support is essential for mission-critical server tasks where data corruption is unacceptable. The 12 MB L3 cache may also help in certain server workloads with large, repeated data sets. However, the data shows zero benchmark wins for the Xeon across the five head-to-head tests. Its appeal is strictly limited to legacy Socket 1366 server platforms that require ECC and where the lower clock speed is an acceptable trade-off.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the i7-2600S offers better performance in every shared test, lower power consumption, and integrated graphics. The Xeon E5640 is only worth considering if you are locked into a Socket 1366 motherboard with ECC memory requirements and cannot move to a Sandy Bridge platform.