Intel Core i7-940XM

The Intel Core i7-940XM is an end-of-life mobile processor in the Core i7 Extreme line, built on Intel’s 45 nm Nehalem architecture with the codename Clarksfield. Its average benchmark score is 664, which places it in the 16th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and its four nearest rivals in the data sit within a range of only 662 to 665 in average score. Those figures frame the 940XM as a tightly clustered, middle-of-the-database performer rather than a high-scoring part, with its appeal depending on mobile platform support and workload shape rather than raw speed.

Benchmark Performance

Benchmark results confirm that the 940XM is not a high-end performer by modern database standards. In Cinebench R23, it scores 1931 in multi-core and 272 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 811 multi-core and 114 single-core. The Cinebench R15 multi-core run produces 194. The average benchmark score is 664, and the percentile versus all CPUs is 16, meaning the database places the majority of processors above it.

The nearest-rival data reinforces how tightly grouped this processor is. The Intel Xeon L5520 averages 665 with a delta of -0.1%, the AMD Athlon II X4 640 averages 663 with a delta of +0.1%, the Intel Core i3-3220 averages 665 with a delta of -0.2%, and the Intel Core i3-3225 averages 662 with a delta of +0.3%. These deltas are so small that the benchmark results indicate no meaningful aggregate winner among the group. The 940XM is effectively trading positions with its nearest rivals, with differences that are far smaller than the score gaps between distinct performance tiers.

Power and Thermals

The thermal profile of the 940XM is defined by a 55 W TDP. For a mobile processor, that is a substantial thermal envelope, especially on a 45 nm process. The die contains 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die, so this is not a low-density power-sipping design. The processor has no integrated graphics, which means the thermal load from the CPU is not shared with an iGPU, but it also means a discrete graphics solution is required in any system using this chip.

The data implies a cooling tier suitable for a 55 W-class quad-core mobile part under sustained multi-thread load. A capable mobile cooling solution with good airflow is needed; nothing in the data suggests this chip belongs in a fanless or ultra-thin cooling design. The multiplier is unlocked, which introduces the possibility of raising clocks and therefore increasing thermal demands above the stock TDP. In stock operation, though, the governing specification is 55 W, and the thermal solution must be designed around that figure.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-thread and multi-thread behavior is clear from the Cinebench runs. In R23, the multi-core score is 1931 against a single-core score of 272. In R20, the multi-core score is 811 against a single-core score of 114. This is a processor with 4 cores and 8 threads, so the multi-core scores reflect scaling across eight logical processors. The single-core scores are low in absolute terms, and tasks that depend on one or two threads will not see much benefit from the Extreme-class label.

Workloads that can use all eight threads extract considerably more from the chip. Batch rendering, video encoding, and similar multi-threaded applications are the kind of work that will approach the multi-core scores. Single-thread-bound software, by contrast, will run at the pace set by the 2.13 GHz base clock and 3.33 GHz boost clock, and the benchmark data shows that pace is modest. The behavior is therefore heavily workload-dependent: strong scaling for parallel tasks, limited responsiveness for lightly threaded interactive work.

Who Should Consider It

The 940XM is a plausible fit for users running older multithreaded software that can use eight threads and does not demand high single-core performance. The nearest-rival data shows it performs in the same class as desktop processors like the Core i3-3220 and Athlon II X4 640, so expectations should be set accordingly. For office productivity such as documents, spreadsheets, and web applications, the 940XM has enough thread count and clock speed for basic use, though the low single-core scores will limit responsiveness in heavier interactive applications.

For modern gaming, the data does not support a strong recommendation. Single-thread scores of 272 in R23 and 114 in R20 are low, and games that rely on per-core performance will be constrained by that ceiling. The 4-core/8-thread layout can help in multithreaded titles, but the absolute scores are still modest. For content creation, Cinebench multi-core scores show that parallel rendering tasks will run, but the numbers are low relative to the rest of the database; large projects would take substantial time. This is a processor for compatibility-focused or legacy systems, not for users seeking high-end modern throughput.

How It Compares

Intel Xeon L5520 — The Xeon L5520 has an average score of 665, and the 940XM is listed with a -0.1% delta. The data shows these two as effectively identical in aggregate benchmark performance. Any difference between them is far smaller than the margin that separates performance tiers, so they should be treated as peers.

AMD Athlon II X4 640 — The Athlon II X4 640 averages 663, and the 940XM holds a +0.1% delta. The 940XM leads by a razor-thin margin in this comparison. The two processors are positioned so closely that workload behavior and platform features would matter more than average score.

Intel Core i3-3220 — The Core i3-3220 averages 665, with the 940XM at -0.2%. The i3-3220 has the slight edge in this dataset, but the gap is negligible. The data places the two chips in the same performance neighborhood.

Intel Core i3-3225 — The Core i3-3225 averages 662, and the 940XM is +0.3% ahead. This is the largest delta in the nearest-rival group, but it is still a marginal advantage. The 940XM leads, yet the score difference is not enough to define a clear performance class separation.

FAQ

Q: What socket does the Intel Core i7-940XM use?

A: It uses Intel Socket G1.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-940XM have integrated graphics?

A: No. The integrated graphics field is "None", so a system built around this processor requires a separate graphics solution.

Q: What memory does the Intel Core i7-940XM support?

A: It supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported.

Q: How many cores and threads does the Intel Core i7-940XM have?

A: It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.13 GHz and a boost clock of 3.33 GHz.

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-940XM multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes. The multiplierUnlocked field is true.

Q: What was the launch MSRP of the Intel Core i7-940XM?

A: The launch MSRP was $1096.

Platform and Compatibility

The 940XM is built for the mobile segment, using Intel Socket G1. It belongs to the Core i7 Extreme generation under the Nehalem architecture, with the codename Clarksfield. The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 21.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory is not supported. The processor provides PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU only, and with no integrated graphics, all display output must come from a discrete GPU. The part number is SLBSCQ4AP, and the production status is end-of-life. The release date is June 19, 2010, so the platform is now well outside active support timelines. For upgrade path considerations, the end-of-life status means no new platform growth is indicated in the data, and any compatible upgrade would have to come from the same Socket G1/Clarksfield space.