Intel Core i7-920 vs Intel Xeon E5540 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits cleanly in one direction: the Intel Core i7-920 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. All five Cinebench tests, spanning R15 through R23 in both multi-core and single-core modes, favor the desktop part. The Xeon E5540, despite its server pedigree, does not claim a single victory in the measured workload set.

That said, the use-case distinction is not about raw benchmark wins. The Core i7-920 is positioned for desktop environments where single-threaded responsiveness and peak multi-core output matter most. Its average benchmark score of 840 sits above the Xeon's 820, and its percentile rank matches the Xeon at 22, meaning both processors land in the same performance tier relative to all CPUs in the database. The Xeon E5540, meanwhile, targets server and workstation deployments where stability, memory integrity, and lower thermal envelopes take precedence over peak Cinebench numbers.

The practical interpretation: if the task is purely about Cinebench-style rendering throughput, the Core i7-920 is the pick in every scenario. If the task is about operating in a server rack with error-correcting memory and lower power draw, the Xeon E5540 has a purpose that the benchmark table does not fully capture. The data shows the i7-920 as the performance leader, but the Xeon's feature set tells a different story about where each chip belongs.

FAQ

Q: Does the Core i7-920 outperform the Xeon E5540 in all tested benchmarks?

A: Yes. The head-to-head results show the i7-920 winning all five Cinebench tests: R15 multi-core (246 vs 240), R20 multi-core (1025 vs 1001), R20 single-core (144 vs 141), R23 multi-core (2442 vs 2384), and R23 single-core (344 vs 336). The win count is 5 to 0.

Q: How much faster is the Core i7-920 in multi-core workloads?

A: The delta is consistently around 2.4% to 2.5%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-920 leads by 2.5%. In R20 multi-core, the lead is 2.4%. In R23 multi-core, it is again 2.4%.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Xeon E5540 wins?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows zero wins for the Xeon E5540. Its best showing is a 2.1% deficit in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 141 against the i7-920's 144.

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

A: The Core i7-920 has an average benchmark score of 840, while the Xeon E5540 sits at 820. That is a 20-point gap, or roughly 2.4% in favor of the i7-920.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 4 cores and 8 threads. They also share the same 45 nm process node, 731 million transistors, 263 mm² die size, and identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

Q: What is the main feature advantage of the Xeon E5540?

A: The Xeon E5540 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-920 does not. The Xeon also has a lower TDP of 80 watts compared to the i7-920's 130 watts, and it comes with a launch MSRP of $774.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Core i7-920 comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 246 against the Xeon E5540's 240, a delta of 2.5%. This is the single biggest percentage gap in the entire comparison. The R20 multi-core test shows a nearly identical story: 1025 vs 1001, a 2.4% advantage. The R23 multi-core test repeats the pattern with 2442 vs 2384, again 2.4%.

Single-core results are marginally closer. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-920 posts 144 against the Xeon's 141, a 2.1% lead. The R23 single-core test shows 344 vs 336, which works out to 2.4%. The consistency of these deltas across both multi-core and single-core tests suggests the i7-920 has a slight clock-speed advantage that translates uniformly across the Cinebench suite. The base clock of 2.67 GHz and boost clock of 2.93 GHz on the i7-920 compare favorably to the Xeon's 2.53 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost.

The data does not show any workload where the Xeon E5540 closes the gap. Even in single-core tests, where server chips sometimes compete better due to optimized boost behavior, the Xeon remains behind. The largest deficit for the Xeon is 2.5% in R15 multi-core, and its smallest is 2.1% in R20 single-core. This narrow but consistent margin means that for any Cinebench-based rendering task, the Core i7-920 is the superior choice. The Xeon's 80-watt TDP does not translate into any measurable performance advantage in these tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several specification fields, despite sharing the same core architecture and socket. The most obvious difference is clock speed: the Core i7-920 runs at 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost, while the Xeon E5540 runs at 2.53 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. This 0.14 GHz gap at both ends likely explains the consistent benchmark deltas.

Power consumption is another clear differentiator. The i7-920 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the Xeon E5540 is rated at just 80 watts. That is a 50-watt difference, making the Xeon significantly more power-efficient on paper. The market segment also differs: the i7-920 is classified as Desktop, while the Xeon E5540 is Server/Workstation. This aligns with the ECC memory support on the Xeon, which the i7-920 lacks.

Memory bandwidth is listed for the Xeon E5540 at 25.6 GB/s, while the i7-920 has no recorded bandwidth figure in the database. Both support DDR3 memory in triple-channel configuration, but the Xeon's server orientation comes with ECC support as a standard feature. The release dates differ by several months: the i7-920 arrived in November 2008, and the Xeon E5540 followed in March 2009.

The launch MSRP for the Xeon E5540 is $774, while the i7-920 has no recorded launch price. Part numbers differ as well: SLBCHSLBEJ for the i7-920 and SLBF6 for the Xeon. Both are end-of-life products, both have locked multipliers, and both use PCIe Gen 2. Neither has integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these two chips are closer than their market segments suggest. Both use the Intel Nehalem architecture, though the codenames differ: Bloomfield for the Core i7-920 and Gainestown for the Xeon E5540. The generation labels reflect this, with the i7-920 listed as "Core i7 (Bloomfield)" and the Xeon as "Xeon (Gainestown)".

The process node is identical at 45 nm, produced by Intel's own foundry. Both chips pack 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The cache layout is exactly the same: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Neither chip has any 3D V-Cache, and total L3 is not listed separately.

The core and thread counts match at 4 cores and 8 threads. Both use Intel Socket 1366, and both support DDR3 memory in triple-channel mode. PCIe generation is Gen 2 for both. The absence of integrated graphics on either part is expected for this era of high-end desktop and server processors.

The key architectural difference is ECC memory support, which is present on the Xeon E5540 but absent on the Core i7-920. This is a functional distinction rather than a performance one, but it defines the Xeon's role in error-sensitive server environments. The lower TDP of the Xeon, at 80 watts versus 130 watts, may also reflect different binning or power delivery characteristics between the desktop and server variants, though the underlying silicon appears identical based on transistor count and die size.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-920 outperforms the Intel Xeon E5540 in every recorded Cinebench test. The margin is small but consistent, ranging from 2.1% to 2.5% across all five workloads. The i7-920's higher clock speeds, at 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost versus the Xeon's 2.53 GHz and 2.80 GHz, directly explain this edge. For any user prioritizing raw rendering performance in Cinebench, the Core i7-920 is the clear choice.

The Xeon E5540, however, is not without its own logic. Its 80-watt TDP versus the i7-920's 130 watts makes it a more power-conscious option for densely packed servers. The ECC memory support is a genuine feature for workloads where data integrity is non-negotiable, and the server/workstation market segment implies a different set of priorities than desktop overclocking or peak single-thread speed. The Xeon's launch MSRP of $774 also positions it as a premium server part, though the database shows no performance justification for that premium in Cinebench terms.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy: 840 for the i7-920 versus 820 for the Xeon, a 2.4% gap that mirrors the head-to-head results. Both chips sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning neither is a top-tier performer by modern standards, but they remain comparable to each other and to rivals like the Intel Xeon X5470 and AMD FX-8800P, which sit within a fraction of a percent in average score.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the Core i7-920 for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering workloads on a desktop platform where ECC is not required. The Xeon E5540 makes sense for server or workstation deployments where ECC memory, lower power draw, and a server-grade feature set outweigh a 2% to 2.5% performance deficit. The numbers do not support choosing the Xeon for speed, but they do support choosing it for its intended market role.