Intel Core i7-3520M vs Intel Xeon E5540 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel Core i7-3520M across every test in the head-to-head comparison. The Intel Xeon E5540 does not post a single winning score, but the margins are tight enough that the Xeon remains competitive in absolute terms.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-3520M scores 244 against the Xeon's 240, a delta of 1.7%. This is the same percentage margin observed in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i7-3520M reaches 1018 points and the Xeon E5540 trails at 1001. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 2426 for the i7-3520M versus 2384 for the Xeon, again 1.8% ahead. These multi-core results are notable because the Xeon E5540 has double the core count and thread count, yet the newer dual-core mobile part manages to stay ahead, likely reflecting the architectural efficiency advantage of the Ivy Bridge design.

Single-core tests follow the same trajectory. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the i7-3520M at 143 points, only 1.4% ahead of the Xeon's 141. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap widens slightly to 1.8%, with scores of 342 and 336 respectively. The i7-3520M also holds the edge in the Geekbench tests, though these were only recorded for the i7-3520M in this dataset: 1156 multi-core and 570 single-core. No comparable Geekbench figures are listed for the Xeon E5540, so the direct comparison relies on the Cinebench suite.

Looking at the broader database context, the i7-3520M posts an average benchmark score of 843 and sits at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FX-8800P at an identical 843 average score, the Intel Core i7-920 at 840, the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839, and the Intel Core i5-3380M at 838. The deltas here are extremely small, ranging from 0.1% to 0.6%, indicating that the i7-3520M is clustered with a group of processors that perform nearly indistinguishably on average.

The Xeon E5540, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 820, placing it at the 22nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD PRO A10-8750B at 821, the Intel Core i5-L16G7 at 816, the Intel Xeon X3440 at 815, and the Intel Core i7-5550U at 813. The deltas here range from -0.1% to 0.9%, with the AMD PRO A10-8750B actually scoring marginally higher on average.

The wins tally is decisive in form: 5 wins for the i7-3520M and 0 for the Xeon E5540. But the substance is less dramatic. Every winning margin falls between 1.4% and 1.8%, a band so narrow that real-world workloads would be unlikely to show a perceptible difference. The data indicates that the i7-3520M is consistently ahead in every recorded benchmark, but the Xeon E5540 is never far behind, even with its older architecture and lower clock speeds.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-3520M wins all recorded single-core tests. It scores 143 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 141 for the Xeon E5540, and 342 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 336. The deltas are 1.4% and 1.8% respectively.

Q: How does the Xeon E5540 compare in multi-core workloads despite having more cores?

A: The Xeon E5540 has 4 cores and 8 threads, double the i7-3520M's 2 cores and 4 threads, yet it still loses in multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 240 against 244 for the i7-3520M. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2384 against 2426.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two CPUs?

A: The i7-3520M has an average benchmark score of 843, while the Xeon E5540 averages 820. That is a 23-point gap, roughly 2.8% in favor of the i7-3520M.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the Xeon E5540 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the Xeon E5540 records zero wins across all five Cinebench tests. The i7-3520M wins all five.

Q: How do these processors rank relative to all CPUs in the database?

A: The i7-3520M sits at the 23rd percentile, while the Xeon E5540 sits at the 22nd percentile. Both are firmly in the lower-middle range of the database, though the i7-3520M edges slightly higher.

Q: Does the Xeon E5540 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon E5540 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The i7-3520M has a dual-channel memory bus, and no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for it in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3520M wins in every benchmark category where both processors have recorded scores. That includes multi-core workloads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, as well as single-core workloads in R20 and R23. The margins are small but consistent, ranging from 1.4% to 1.8%. For users running Cinebench-style rendering tasks, the i7-3520M holds a slight but measurable edge.

The Xeon E5540 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its strengths lie in platform-level features rather than raw benchmark scores. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive server and workstation workloads. It also offers a triple-channel memory bus with 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which can benefit memory-intensive applications even if the CPU cores themselves score slightly lower. The Xeon's 8 MB of shared L3 cache is double the 4 MB found on the i7-3520M, which may help in workloads with large working sets that fit within cache.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the i7-3520M is the better choice. Its higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz versus the Xeon's 2.80 GHz, combined with the newer Ivy Bridge architecture, gives it a clear advantage in lightly threaded tasks. The data shows this in the single-core Cinebench results, where the i7-3520M leads by 1.4% to 1.8%.

For multi-threaded throughput, the Xeon E5540's core advantage does not translate into a win, but the margin is so thin that the Xeon remains a viable option in systems that require ECC memory or triple-channel bandwidth. The i7-3520M's multi-core wins are real, but they are not the kind of decisive leads that would make the Xeon obsolete in its intended server role.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E5540 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for the i7-3520M and 2.53 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 3.60 GHz and 2.80 GHz respectively, giving the i7-3520M a 0.80 GHz advantage at maximum frequency.

Thermal design power differs substantially: the i7-3520M is rated at 35 watts, while the Xeon E5540 draws 80 watts. This reflects their different market segments, with the i7-3520M designed for mobile systems and the Xeon for server or workstation platforms.

The sockets are incompatible. The i7-3520M uses Intel BGA 1023, a soldered mobile socket, while the Xeon E5540 uses Intel Socket 1366, a desktop and server socket.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, but the L3 cache is 4 MB shared on the i7-3520M versus 8 MB shared on the Xeon E5540.

Memory support is a clear differentiator. The Xeon E5540 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The i7-3520M has a dual-channel memory bus, no recorded memory bandwidth figure, and no ECC support.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i7-3520M includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, while the Xeon E5540 has no integrated graphics at all.

The Xeon E5540 carries a launch MSRP of $774. The i7-3520M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is significant. The i7-3520M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process node. The Xeon E5540 uses the older Nehalem architecture, built on a 45 nm process node. The process shrink gives the i7-3520M a substantial efficiency advantage, which is reflected in its 35 watt TDP versus the Xeon's 80 watts.

The Xeon E5540's die is considerably larger at 263 mm², with 731 million transistors. The i7-3520M has a die size of 118 mm², and no transistor count is recorded for it. The difference in die size and process node explains why the Xeon, despite having more cores, consumes more than double the power.

The codenames reflect the generation gap: the i7-3520M is based on Ivy Bridge, while the Xeon E5540 is based on Gainestown. The release dates are also far apart, with the Xeon E5540 arriving earlier and the i7-3520M later. This generational gap matters because Ivy Bridge includes architectural improvements over Nehalem in instruction efficiency, branch prediction, and power management.

The Xeon E5540 supports PCIe Gen 2, while no PCIe version is recorded for the i7-3520M. The Xeon also has ECC memory support, a feature absent from the i7-3520M. These are platform-level differences that matter more in server environments than in typical client workloads.

The i7-3520M is classified as a mobile part, while the Xeon E5540 is classified as a server or workstation part. The Xeon's production status is listed as end-of-life, while no production status is recorded for the i7-3520M.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner: the Intel Core i7-3520M wins every recorded benchmark against the Xeon E5540, with margins between 1.4% and 1.8%. Its advantage in single-core performance is particularly relevant for everyday tasks and lightly threaded applications, where its higher boost clock and newer architecture provide the edge.

However, the Xeon E5540 should not be dismissed based solely on benchmark scores. Its ECC memory support, triple-channel memory bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache make it the appropriate choice for server or workstation environments where data integrity and memory throughput take priority over raw single-thread speed. The fact that it matches the i7-3520M so closely in multi-core tests despite its older Nehalem architecture and lower clock speeds confirms the value of its additional cores.

For mobile users needing a low-power processor with integrated graphics, the i7-3520M is the only viable option. Its 35 watt TDP and Intel HD 4000 graphics make it suitable for laptops where the Xeon E5540, with its 80 watt TDP and no integrated graphics, would be impractical.

For server builders requiring ECC memory and triple-channel bandwidth, the Xeon E5540 is the correct pick, provided the benchmark gap is acceptable. The Xeon's end-of-life production status is a consideration, but the recorded data shows it still performs competitively.

The i7-3520M is the overall benchmark winner, but the Xeon E5540 wins on platform features that benchmarks do not capture. Choose based on the workload requirements: the i7-3520M for client-side performance and efficiency, the Xeon E5540 for server-class reliability and memory bandwidth.