Intel Xeon E5540 vs Intel Xeon X3450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the Intel Xeon X3450 across every recorded Cinebench workload. In the multicore R15 test, the X3450 scores 245 against the Xeon E5540’s 240, a 2.1% lead. The R20 multicore run narrows the margin slightly to 2.0%, with scores of 1021 and 1001 respectively. Single-core results follow the same pattern: the X3450 posts 144 in R20 single-core versus 141 for the E5540, a 2.1% edge, and 343 in R23 single-core versus 336, also 2.1% ahead.

The largest absolute gap appears in the R23 multicore test, where the X3450’s 2431 outpaces the E5540’s 2384 by 47 points, though the percentage difference remains 2.0%. Across all five head-to-head benchmarks, the X3450 wins every contest, giving it a clean 5-0 sweep. No benchmark in the database records a victory for the E5540, even by a fractional margin.

These deltas are small enough that real-world application performance would likely feel similar, but the consistency matters. The X3450’s advantage does not fluctuate with workload type, suggesting a fundamental clock-speed edge rather than a cache or memory hierarchy quirk. For users comparing these two server chips from the same Nehalem generation, the X3450 is the faster part in every measured scenario, though the E5540 remains within striking distance, never trailing by more than 2.1%.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same 45 nm Nehalem architecture and Intel foundry, but they diverge in several key physical and platform specifications. The X3450 uses the Lynnfield codename and fits the Intel Socket 1156, while the E5540 is Gainestown-based and requires Intel Socket 1366. This socket difference is not cosmetic: it determines which motherboards, chipsets, and memory topologies each CPU can use.

The transistor counts differ as well. The X3450 packs 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die, while the E5540 has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The X3450 is the larger and denser chip, which correlates with its higher clock speeds. Both CPUs have 4 cores and 8 threads, with identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. ECC memory support is present on both, and neither has integrated graphics.

Clock speeds tell a clear story. The X3450 runs at a 2.67 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.20 GHz, while the E5540 operates at 2.53 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. That translates to a 140 MHz base advantage and a 400 MHz boost advantage for the X3450. The E5540 compensates with a lower thermal design power, 80 watts versus 95 watts for the X3450, making it the more power-efficient choice on paper.

Memory support also differs meaningfully. The X3450 uses dual-channel DDR3 with a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while the E5540 employs triple-channel DDR3, reaching 25.6 GB/s. Despite the E5540’s higher theoretical bandwidth, the benchmark results show the X3450 still wins all CPU-bound Cinebench tests, indicating that memory bandwidth is not the limiting factor in these workloads. PCIe connectivity is Gen 2 on both, though the X3450 specifies 16 lanes from the CPU, while the E5540 lists simply “Gen 2” without lane details.

Release timing favors the E5540, which launched on March 29, 2009, roughly five months before the X3450’s September 7, 2009 debut. Both are now end-of-life products. The launch MSRP for the X3450 was $241, while the E5540 launched at $774, a significant price gap that reflects their different platform positioning at release.

Where Each One Wins

The X3450 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. It takes all five Cinebench benchmarks, including both multicore and single-core tests. Its higher base and boost clocks, 2.67 GHz and 3.20 GHz versus 2.53 GHz and 2.80 GHz, directly contribute to these wins. For workloads that are latency-sensitive or lightly threaded, the X3450’s 400 MHz boost advantage is particularly valuable, as shown by the 2.1% lead in both R20 and R23 single-core tests.

The E5540 wins in power efficiency and memory bandwidth. Its 80 watt TDP is 15 watts lower than the X3450’s 95 watt rating, which can matter in densely packed server racks where thermal management is a constraint. The triple-channel memory interface provides 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth, a 20% advantage over the X3450’s 21.3 GB/s. For memory-heavy server workloads, such as large in-memory databases or virtualization hosts that move substantial data between RAM and cache, the E5540 could offer smoother operation despite its lower CPU clock speeds.

The socket distinction also creates a use-case split. The X3450’s Socket 1156 platform is shared with mainstream desktop chips, making it easier to source motherboards for small-scale server or workstation builds. The E5540’s Socket 1366 targets dual-socket server boards, which could be relevant for users planning multi-CPU configurations. However, the database records no dual-socket benchmark results, so this remains a platform consideration rather than a measured performance factor.

For single-socket deployments where CPU throughput is the priority, the X3450 is the better choice. For power-conscious installations or those leveraging triple-channel memory, the E5540 holds specific advantages that the benchmark suite does not fully capture.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon X3450 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15, it scores 245 versus the E5540’s 240; in R20, 1021 versus 1001; and in R23, 2431 versus 2384. The delta is consistently 2.0 to 2.1%.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap the same as multi-core?

A: Yes, the single-core margins are nearly identical. The X3450 leads by 2.1% in both R20 single-core (144 vs 141) and R23 single-core (343 vs 336), matching its multi-core advantage.

Q: Are these CPUs compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The X3450 uses Intel Socket 1156, while the E5540 requires Intel Socket 1366. They are not interchangeable, and each requires a motherboard matching its respective socket.

Q: Which processor supports more memory bandwidth?

A: The E5540 has a triple-channel memory bus delivering 25.6 GB/s, compared to the X3450’s dual-channel 21.3 GB/s. Despite this, the X3450 still wins all recorded CPU benchmarks.

Q: How do their power draws compare?

A: The E5540 has a lower thermal design power at 80 watts, versus 95 watts for the X3450. This makes the E5540 more power-efficient on paper, though the X3450 offers higher clock speeds.

Q: When were these processors released?

A: The E5540 launched on March 29, 2009, and the X3450 followed on September 7, 2009. Both are now end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X3450 | Intel Xeon E5540 |

|---|---|---|

| Base clock | 2.67 GHz | 2.53 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 80 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1156 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Codename | Lynnfield | Gainestown |

| Transistors | 774 million | 731 million |

| Die size | 296 mm² | 263 mm² |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 21.3 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Release date | 2009-09-07 | 2009-03-29 |

| Launch MSRP | $241 | $774 |

| Part number | SLBLD | SLBF6 |

The two CPUs share identical core counts (4), thread counts (8), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), and L3 cache (8 MB shared). Both are 45 nm Nehalem parts with ECC memory support, no integrated graphics, and locked multipliers. The X3450’s higher clocks and larger die come at the cost of a 15 watt higher TDP, while the E5540’s triple-channel memory and earlier release date distinguish it on the platform side.