Athlon 220GE vs Xeon E5-2640

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2640
2012
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
4.10
+42.9%

Xeon E5-2640 outperforms Athlon 220GE by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking13951656
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.774.08
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Athlon
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EP (2012)Zen (2017−2020)
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$162$65

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Athlon 220GE has 8% better value for money than Xeon E5-2640.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads124
Base clock speed2.5 GHz3.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz3.4 GHz
Bus rate7.2 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data34
L1 cache64 KB (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache15360 KB (shared)4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size435 mm2209.78 mm2
Maximum core temperature73 °Cno data
Number of transistors2,270 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE 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 configuration21 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXno data
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology1.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
StatusDiscontinuedno data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE 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 Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size384 GB64 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth42.6 GB/s42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4012

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.

Xeon E5-2640 4.10
+42.9%
Athlon 220GE 2.87

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.

Xeon E5-2640 6324
+42.9%
Athlon 220GE 4424

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.10 2.87
Recency 6 March 2012 1 June 2018
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 12 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Xeon E5-2640 has a 42.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

Athlon 220GE, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 171.4% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 220GE in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2640 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 220GE is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2640 and Athlon 220GE, 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 Xeon E5-2640
Xeon E5-2640
AMD Athlon 220GE
Athlon 220GE

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.


4.2 1086 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 48 votes

Rate Athlon 220GE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2640 or Athlon 220GE, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.