FX-8370 vs Xeon E5-2640
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2640 outperforms FX-8370 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1427 | 1446 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.66 | 0.82 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 3.94 | 2.94 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Vishera (2012−2015) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 2 September 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $162 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5-2640 has 346% better value for money than FX-8370.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370 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 cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 7.2 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 8192 KB |
| L3 cache | 15360 KB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 315 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | 61 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 1,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| P0 Vcore voltage | no data | Min: 1.2 V - Max: 1.4 V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370 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 configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370 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 FX-8370 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 FX-8370. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 384 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | n/a |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.96 | 3.88 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 2 September 2014 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Xeon E5-2640 has a 2.1% higher aggregate performance score, 50% more threads, and 31.6% lower power consumption.
FX-8370, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 33.3% more physical cores.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2640 is a server/workstation processor while FX-8370 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2640 and FX-8370, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
