Xeon L5240 vs i5-2500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-2500
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
2.69
+209%

Core i5-2500 outperforms Xeon L5240 by a whopping 209% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking17192562
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.66no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency2.581.98
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)no data
Release date9 January 2011 (13 years ago)1 April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$85no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)no data
Threads4no data
Base clock speed3.3 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHzno data
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)no data
L3 cache6144 KB (shared)6 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size216 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature73 °C56 °C
Number of transistors1,160 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.35V

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1no data
SocketLGA1155LGA771
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt40 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVXno data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+-
Turbo Boost Technology2.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+-
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switchingno data+
FDI+no data
Fast Memory Access+no data
FSB parityno data-

Security technologies

Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Identity Protection+-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size32 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 2000no data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video HD+no data
Graphics max frequency1.1 GHzno data
InTru 3D+no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported2no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes16no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i5-2500 2.69
+209%
Xeon L5240 0.87

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i5-2500 4112
+208%
Xeon L5240 1337

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.69 0.87
Recency 9 January 2011 1 April 2008
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 40 Watt

i5-2500 has a 209.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon L5240, on the other hand, has 137.5% lower power consumption.

The Core i5-2500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon L5240 in performance tests.

Note that Core i5-2500 is a desktop processor while Xeon L5240 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-2500 and Xeon L5240, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i5-2500
Core i5-2500
Intel Xeon L5240
Xeon L5240

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 1627 votes

Rate Core i5-2500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 1 vote

Rate Xeon L5240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-2500 or Xeon L5240, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.