Intel Core i7-920 vs Intel Xeon X3440 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-920 records an average benchmark score of 840, while the Intel Xeon X3440 scores 815. The i7-920 sits 0.1% above the Intel Xeon X5470 (839) and 0.2% above the Intel Core i5-3380M (838), while the Xeon X3440 sits 0.1% below the Intel Core i5-L16G7 (816) and 0.7% below the Intel Xeon E5540 (820).

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

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i7-920 scores 344 versus 334 for the Xeon X3440, a 3% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-920 scores 144 versus 140, a 2.9% lead. The i7-920 wins every single-core test in the head-to-head data.

Q: Are both processors built on the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes, both use the Nehalem architecture and are fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process. The i7-920 is codenamed Bloomfield, while the Xeon X3440 is codenamed Lynnfield. The i7-920 has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, while the Xeon X3440 packs 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die.

Q: Do both support DDR3 memory?

A: Both support DDR3. The i7-920 uses a triple-channel memory bus, while the Xeon X3440 uses a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. The Xeon X3440 also supports ECC memory, which the i7-920 does not.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The i7-920 has a TDP of 130 W, while the Xeon X3440 has a TDP of 95 W. That is a 35 W gap, which is notable for systems where cooling and power delivery are constrained.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock?

A: The i7-920 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz versus 2.53 GHz for the Xeon X3440. Both share the same boost clock of 2.93 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to the same Nehalem family but branch into different platform designs. The Intel Core i7-920, codenamed Bloomfield, targets the desktop segment and uses Intel Socket 1366. The Intel Xeon X3440, codenamed Lynnfield, is aimed at the server and workstation segment and uses Intel Socket 1156. This socket difference is the most obvious architectural split, and it has downstream effects on memory and platform capabilities.

Both chips contain 4 physical cores and 8 threads, and both share the same cache hierarchy: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The transistor counts differ slightly, with the Xeon X3440 containing 774 million transistors versus 731 million for the i7-920. The die sizes also differ: the Xeon measures 296 mm², while the i7-920 measures 263 mm². The larger die and transistor count on the Xeon likely reflect the integrated memory controller and platform changes required for the 1156 socket, though the recorded data does not specify exactly which functional blocks account for the extra area.

The memory subsystem represents a key architectural divergence. The i7-920 uses a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus, while the Xeon X3440 uses a dual-channel DDR3 bus with a documented bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. The Xeon compensates for the narrower memory path by adding ECC memory support, a feature absent on the i7-920. For workloads that benefit from error-correcting memory, this is a meaningful distinction, though the i7-920's extra memory channel could deliver higher theoretical bandwidth for non-ECC workloads.

Another difference sits in the PCIe implementation. The i7-920 supports PCIe Gen 2, and the Xeon X3440 also supports PCIe Gen 2 but with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The i7-920's PCIe configuration is not specified with a lane count in the data, so the comparison is limited to what is recorded. Both chips lack integrated graphics, so neither offers an on-die GPU.

The market positioning also reflects architecture intent. The i7-920 is a desktop part, while the Xeon X3440 is a server and workstation part. Despite that, both are marked as end-of-life and both have locked multipliers, so neither offers overclocking flexibility through an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ, with the i7-920 arriving in November 2008 and the Xeon X3440 in September 2009.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers five Cinebench tests, and the Intel Core i7-920 wins all five. The margin is consistent across both multi-core and single-core workloads, ranging from 2.9% to 3.4%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-920 scores 246 against 238 for the Xeon X3440, a 3.4% advantage. This is the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1025 versus 994, a 3.1% lead. In R23 multi-core, the i7-920 posts 2442 versus 2368, again 3.1% ahead. The consistency of these multi-core margins suggests that the i7-920's higher base clock of 2.67 GHz versus 2.53 GHz provides a steady throughput advantage across the Cinebench suite.

Single-core results follow the same pattern but with slightly smaller margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-920 scores 144 versus 140, a 2.9% gap. In R23 single-core, the i7-920 scores 344 versus 334, a 3% gap. These small but consistent single-core wins indicate that the i7-920's clock advantage translates directly into per-thread performance, even though both chips share the same 2.93 GHz boost clock.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head picture. The i7-920 averages 840 across the database, while the Xeon X3440 averages 815. That 25-point gap places the i7-920 slightly above rivals like the Intel Xeon X5470 (839) and Intel Core i5-3380M (838), while the Xeon X3440 sits just below the Intel Core i5-L16G7 (816) and just above the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 (813). Both chips land at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning their overall standing in the broader market is essentially identical, even though the i7-920 holds a clear edge in this direct comparison.

No test in the recorded data goes the Xeon X3440's way. The wins tally is 5 for the i7-920 and 0 for the Xeon. The narrowest margin is the R20 single-core test at 2.9%, and the widest is R15 multi-core at 3.4%. The overall pattern is one of a modest but consistent performance advantage for the desktop part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications, while sharing many others. Here are the fields where they diverge:

• Base clock: 2.67 GHz (i7-920) versus 2.53 GHz (Xeon X3440)
• TDP: 130 W (i7-920) versus 95 W (Xeon X3440)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1366 (i7-920) versus Intel Socket 1156 (Xeon X3440)
• Codename: Bloomfield (i7-920) versus Lynnfield (Xeon X3440)
• Generation label: Core i7 (Bloomfield) versus Xeon (Lynnfield)
• Transistors: 731 million (i7-920) versus 774 million (Xeon X3440)
• Die size: 263 mm² (i7-920) versus 296 mm² (Xeon X3440)
• Memory bus: Triple-channel (i7-920) versus dual-channel (Xeon X3440)
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded for i7-920; 21.3 GB/s for Xeon X3440
• ECC memory: false (i7-920) versus true (Xeon X3440)
• PCIe: Gen 2 (i7-920) versus Gen 2, 16 lanes from CPU only (Xeon X3440)
• Market segment: Desktop (i7-920) versus Server/Workstation (Xeon X3440)
• Release date: November 2008 (i7-920) versus September 2009 (Xeon X3440)
• Launch MSRP: not recorded for i7-920; $215 for Xeon X3440
• Part number: SLBCHSLBEJ (i7-920) versus SLBLF (Xeon X3440)

The two chips share the same core count (4), thread count (8), boost clock (2.93 GHz), architecture (Nehalem), process node (45 nm), foundry (Intel), cache layout (64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 8 MB L3 shared), memory type (DDR3), and integrated graphics (none). Both are end-of-life, and both have locked multipliers.

The TDP difference deserves attention. The i7-920 dissipates 130 W, which is 35 W higher than the Xeon X3440's 95 W. This means the Xeon delivers nearly the same performance while drawing significantly less power, which is a notable efficiency advantage for dense server environments. The i7-920's higher base clock likely explains part of the TDP gap, but the platform differences between Bloomfield and Lynnfield also play a role.

The memory bus difference is another key specification split. Triple-channel memory on the i7-920 theoretically provides more bandwidth than the Xeon's dual-channel setup, though the Xeon's recorded bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s gives a concrete figure for its memory throughput. The i7-920's memory bandwidth is not recorded in the data, so no direct bandwidth comparison can be made.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-920 wins in raw computational performance across every recorded Cinebench test. It leads in multi-core workloads by margins of 3.1% to 3.4%, and in single-core workloads by 2.9% to 3%. For users running rendering tasks, video encoding, or any workload that scales across cores, the i7-920 is the stronger choice based on the data. Its higher base clock and triple-channel memory bus make it well suited for desktop workloads where peak throughput matters more than power efficiency.

The Intel Xeon X3440 wins in efficiency and platform features. Its 95 W TDP is substantially lower than the i7-920's 130 W, which makes it a better fit for systems with limited cooling or power budgets. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is critical for servers and workstations where data integrity is non-negotiable. Its dual-channel memory bus with a recorded 21.3 GB/s bandwidth is narrower than the i7-920's triple-channel setup, but the ECC support and lower power draw give it a distinct role in reliability-focused environments.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the i7-920 again takes the lead, but the margin is small enough that most users would not notice a difference in everyday desktop use. The Xeon's single-core scores of 140 in R20 and 334 in R23 are within 3% of the i7-920's 144 and 344, respectively. The gap is real but modest.

In terms of platform flexibility, the i7-920's Socket 1366 and triple-channel memory support make it the more expandable desktop platform on paper, while the Xeon's Socket 1156 and ECC support make it the more specialized server platform. The Xeon's launch MSRP of $215 provides a reference point for its original market positioning, though no such figure is recorded for the i7-920.

The data does not show any test where the Xeon X3440 outperforms the i7-920. The wins tally is 5-0. However, the Xeon's advantages are not captured in raw Cinebench scores: ECC memory support, lower TDP, and a server-oriented feature set. These are qualitative benefits that do not appear in the benchmark numbers but matter for specific use cases.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-920 outperforms the Intel Xeon X3440 in every recorded Cinebench test. The multi-core margins range from 3.1% to 3.4%, and single-core margins range from 2.9% to 3%. The average benchmark score of 840 versus 815 confirms the overall trend. Anyone choosing purely on raw performance should select the i7-920.

The Xeon X3440, however, offers compensating advantages that do not show up in Cinebench scores. Its 95 W TDP is 35 W lower than the i7-920's 130 W, making it a more power-efficient choice for dense server racks or systems with constrained thermal envelopes. Its ECC memory support is a hard requirement for certain server and workstation workloads, and the recorded memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s gives it a concrete specification for memory throughput planning. Its launch MSRP of $215 also places it in a specific original market tier, though the i7-920 has no recorded launch price for comparison.

The choice comes down to workload and platform priorities. For a desktop system where maximum Cinebench throughput is the goal, the i7-920 is the clear winner. For a server or workstation where ECC memory, lower power draw, and a server-grade feature set take precedence, the Xeon X3440 is the appropriate pick despite its slightly lower scores.

Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, which indicates that neither is a high-performance part by modern standards. They are end-of-life products, and both have locked multipliers, so overclocking is not an option. The i7-920's triple-channel memory bus gives it a theoretical bandwidth advantage, while the Xeon's dual-channel bus is paired with a documented 21.3 GB/s figure.

The final recommendation follows the data: pick the i7-920 for performance, pick the Xeon X3440 for ECC support and lower power consumption. The performance gap is small, but it is consistent across every test. The efficiency and reliability features of the Xeon are real, but they do not translate into benchmark wins. In a direct head-to-head, the i7-920 is the faster processor, and the Xeon X3440 is the more specialized one.