Athlon II X4 638 vs Core i7-940XM

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-940XM
2010
4 cores / 8 threads, 55 Watt
1.41
Athlon II X4 638
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
1.45
+2.8%

Athlon II X4 638 outperforms Core i7-940XM by a minimal 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking21102080
Place by popularitynot in top-10099
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.05
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core i7no data
Architecture codenameClarksfield (2009−2010)Llano (2011−2012)
Release date20 June 2010 (13 years ago)6 February 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,096no data
Current price$200 (0.2x MSRP)$27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads84
Base clock speed2.13 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.33 GHz2.7 GHz
Bus support2500 MHzno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)128 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size296 mm2228 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Number of transistors774 million1,178 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierYesNo

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638 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 configuration11
SocketFCPGA988,PGA988FM1
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI-no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology+no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE36 Bitno data
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-1066, DDR3-1333DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth21 GB/sno data
ECC memory support-no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardNoneno data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638.

PCIe version2no 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.

i7-940XM 1.41
Athlon II X4 638 1.45
+2.8%

Athlon II X4 638 outperforms Core i7-940XM by 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

i7-940XM 2187
Athlon II X4 638 2250
+2.9%

Athlon II X4 638 outperforms Core i7-940XM by 3% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.41 1.45
Recency 20 June 2010 6 February 2012
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 65 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638.

Be aware that Core i7-940XM is a notebook processor while Athlon II X4 638 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-940XM and Athlon II X4 638, 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 i7-940XM
Core i7-940XM
AMD Athlon II X4 638
Athlon II X4 638

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.


3.2 58 votes

Rate Core i7-940XM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 34 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 638 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-940XM or Athlon II X4 638, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.