Atom x5-E8000 vs Xeon E5440

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5440
2008
80 Watt
1.49
+144%
Atom x5-E8000
2016
4 cores / 4 threads, 5 Watt
0.61

Xeon E5440 outperforms Atom x5-E8000 by a whopping 144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21422787
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno data5x Intel Atom
Power efficiency1.7611.55
Architecture codenameno dataCherry Trail (2015−2016)
Release date1 January 2008 (16 years ago)8 February 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$39

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000 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 coresno data4 (Quad-Core)
Threadsno data4
Base clock speed2.83 GHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1.04 GHz
Multiplierno data10
L2 cacheno data2 MB
L3 cache12 MB L2 Cache0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature67 °C90 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.35Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketLGA771no data
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching+no data
FSB parity+no data

Security technologies

Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000 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 E5440 and Atom x5-E8000 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data
EPT-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4

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 E5440 1.49
+144%
Atom x5-E8000 0.61

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 E5440 2374
+147%
Atom x5-E8000 962

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.

Xeon E5440 367
+145%
Atom x5-E8000 150

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.

Xeon E5440 1029
+149%
Atom x5-E8000 413

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.49 0.61
Recency 1 January 2008 8 February 2016
Chip lithography 45 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 5 Watt

Xeon E5440 has a 144.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Atom x5-E8000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 1500% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5440 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom x5-E8000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5440 is a server/workstation processor while Atom x5-E8000 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5440 and Atom x5-E8000, 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 E5440
Xeon E5440
Intel Atom x5-E8000
Atom x5-E8000

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.


4 484 votes

Rate Xeon E5440 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 58 votes

Rate Atom x5-E8000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5440 or Atom x5-E8000, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.