Intel Xeon E5540 vs Intel Xeon X5470 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, narrow victory for the Intel Xeon X5470 across every recorded Cinebench test. The X5470 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with the E5540 trailing by a margin that never exceeds 2.4%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the X5470 scores 245 against the E5540’s 240, a 2.1% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 1024 for the X5470 versus 1001 for the E5540, a 2.3% advantage. Single-core results follow the same trend, with the X5470 posting 144 in R20 single-core against 141 for the E5540, and 344 in R23 single-core versus 336, a 2.4% gap that represents the largest single delta in the entire comparison.

The multi-core margins are remarkably stable. In R15, the X5470 leads by 2.1%; in R20 and R23, the lead grows to 2.3%. This consistency suggests the X5470’s higher base clock of 3.33 GHz provides a steady advantage over the E5540’s 2.53 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. The E5540 does have Hyper-Threading, giving it 8 threads against the X5470’s 4, but the recorded scores indicate that thread count alone does not overcome the clock-speed deficit. The X5470’s average benchmark score of 839 also edges out the E5540’s 820, a difference of roughly 2.3% across the full test suite. Both CPUs sit at the 22nd percentile among all recorded processors, placing them in the same performance tier despite the E5540’s newer architecture and additional threads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon X5470. It outperforms the E5540 in every benchmark category, from single-core to multi-core workloads, with margins between 2.1% and 2.4%. The X5470’s 5-0 win record in head-to-head tests is unambiguous. For workloads that rely on raw clock speed, such as lightly threaded applications or tasks with poor parallel scaling, the X5470 is the superior choice based on the recorded scores.

The E5540, however, is not without merit. Its 8 threads, enabled by Hyper-Threading, mean it can handle more concurrent tasks than the X5470’s 4 threads, even if the benchmark scores do not reflect a decisive advantage in multi-core tests. The E5540 also supports triple-channel DDR3 memory with a rated bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, which may benefit memory-intensive workloads that are not captured by Cinebench scores. The E5540’s lower TDP of 80 watts, compared to the X5470’s 120 watts, makes it a more power-efficient option for dense server deployments, though the performance trade-off is minimal according to the data.

Users who prioritize maximum performance per clock cycle should choose the X5470. Users who need higher memory bandwidth, more threads for highly parallel workloads, or lower power consumption should consider the E5540, knowing that the measured performance gap is small. The average benchmark scores place the X5470 at 839, with its nearest rival being the Intel Core i7-920 at 840 (a 0.1% difference), while the E5540’s 820 average sits close to the AMD PRO A10-8750B at 821 (a 0.1% difference). Both CPUs are end-of-life products, so availability and platform compatibility will likely dictate the final decision.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct architectural generations from Intel. The X5470 belongs to the Core 2 family, with the codename Harpertown, built on a 45 nm process node. It packs 820 million transistors across two dies, each measuring 107 mm², for a combined die size of 214 mm². The E5540, by contrast, is a Nehalem part with the codename Gainestown, also on a 45 nm process but with 731 million transistors on a single 263 mm² die. The transistor count difference of 89 million reflects the architectural shift from Core 2’s dual-die design to Nehalem’s monolithic layout.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The X5470 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no shared L3 cache. The E5540 also has 64 KB of L1 per core but uses 256 KB of L2 per core, a four-fold increase in per-core L2, and adds an 8 MB shared L3 cache. This larger, shared cache can benefit workloads that repeatedly access the same data, though the benchmark scores do not show a corresponding performance advantage for the E5540. Memory support also diverges: the X5470 uses dual-channel DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, while the E5540 uses triple-channel DDR3 with a rated bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The E5540’s memory bus is wider and faster on paper, but the X5470’s higher clock speed appears to compensate in the recorded tests.

Both CPUs support ECC memory, target the server and workstation segment, and use PCIe Gen 2. The X5470 requires Intel Socket 771, while the E5540 uses Intel Socket 1366. The release dates are close: the X5470 launched in September 2008, the E5540 in March 2009. The X5470’s launch MSRP was $1386, while the E5540’s was $774. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are end-of-life. The X5470’s part number is SLBBF; the E5540’s is SLBF6. The E5540’s boost clock of 2.80 GHz is its only clock above the base, while the X5470 has no boost clock, relying entirely on its 3.33 GHz base frequency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon X5470 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz with no boost clock. The Intel Xeon E5540 has a base clock of 2.53 GHz and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz. The X5470’s base clock is higher than the E5540’s boost clock.

Q: How many threads does each processor support?

A: The Xeon X5470 supports 4 threads from its 4 cores. The Xeon E5540 supports 8 threads from its 4 cores thanks to Hyper-Threading.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Xeon X5470 scores 344 against the E5540’s 336, a lead of 2.4%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon X5470 and the Xeon E5540 support ECC memory, consistent with their server and workstation market segment.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Xeon X5470 has an average benchmark score of 839, while the Xeon E5540 has an average score of 820, a difference of 19 points in favor of the X5470.

Q: Which processor has a shared L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5540 has an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon X5470 has no L3 cache, only 6 MB of L2 per die.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon X5470 wins in every recorded benchmark, making it the default choice for tasks that are measured by Cinebench. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-core tests, where the 2.4% lead in R23 single-core and 2.1% lead in R20 single-core reflect the benefit of its 3.33 GHz clock. For applications that depend on a single thread, such as older games or legacy software, the X5470’s higher frequency provides a measurable edge. Multi-core tests also favor the X5470, with leads of 2.1% in R15 and 2.3% in both R20 and R23, showing that even with half the thread count, the X5470’s clock speed compensates for the E5540’s Hyper-Threading.

The E5540’s wins are not in the benchmark scores but in platform features. Its triple-channel DDR3 memory support with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth gives it a theoretical memory throughput advantage, which could benefit workloads like database servers or data analysis that are memory-bandwidth sensitive. The E5540’s 8 threads, while not translating to a Cinebench victory, could improve responsiveness in heavily threaded workloads that scale beyond 4 threads, such as virtualization hosts running multiple VMs. The E5540’s 80-watt TDP, compared to the X5470’s 120 watts, makes it the better choice for power-constrained environments where lower heat output and energy consumption are priorities. Its larger shared L3 cache of 8 MB may also aid workloads with high cache reuse, though the recorded Cinebench scores do not show a corresponding win.

In practical terms, the X5470 is the pick for raw performance in the tested benchmarks, while the E5540 is the pick for memory bandwidth, thread scalability, and power efficiency. The performance gap is small, but the X5470’s consistent wins make it the stronger performer in the database’s measurements. The E5540’s platform advantages, however, could tip the scale for specific server workloads that are not represented in Cinebench scores.