Core i5-661 vs Xeon E5440

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i5-661 vs Xeon E5440 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i5-661 vs Xeon E5440: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i5-661

2010

Why buy it

✅Costs $494 less on MSRP ($196 MSRP vs $690 MSRP).
✅Delivers 255.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.2 vs 3.4 PassMark/$ ($196 MSRP vs $690 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5440, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.

Xeon E5440

2007

Why buy it

✅+200% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 4 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads.
✅Draws 80W instead of 87W, a 7W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,367 vs 2,387).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.4 vs 12.2 PassMark/$ ($690 MSRP vs $196 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i5-661 better than Xeon E5440?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5440 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i5-661 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i5-661 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i5-661 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i5-661 is the better buy right now. Core i5-661 comes in $494 cheaper on MSRP at $196 MSRP versus $690 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 255.0% better value on MSRP (12.2 vs 3.4 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i5-661 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2010 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i5-661 vs Xeon E5440 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i5-661

The Core i5-661 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Clarkdale (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.33 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1156. Thermal design power (TDP): 87 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,387 points. Launch price was $252.

Xeon E5440

The Xeon E5440 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 November 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Harpertown (2007−2008) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.83 GHz, with boost up to 0.83 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 2,367 points. Launch price was $690.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i5-661 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5440 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5440 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.6 GHz on the Core i5-661 versus 0.83 GHz on the Xeon E5440 — a 125.1% clock advantage for the Core i5-661 (base: 3.33 GHz vs 2.83 GHz). The Core i5-661 uses the Clarkdale (2010−2011) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5440 uses Harpertown (2007−2008) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-661 scores 2,387 against the Xeon E5440's 2,367 — a 0.8% lead for the Core i5-661. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core i5-661 vs 12 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E5440.

Feature	Core i5-661	Xeon E5440
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3.6 GHz+334%	0.83 GHz
Base Clock	3.33 GHz+18%	2.83 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	12 MB L2 Cache+200%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	6 MB (total)+2300%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Clarkdale (2010−2011)	Harpertown (2007−2008)
PassMark	2,387	2,367

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-661 uses the LGA1156 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5440 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i5-661	Xeon E5440
Socket	LGA1156	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i5-661 was priced at $196, while the Xeon E5440 came in at $690. On launch pricing ($196 vs $690), Core i5-661 was $494 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i5-661 delivers 12.2 pts/$ vs 3.4 pts/$ for the Xeon E5440 — making the Core i5-661 the 112.1% better value option.

Feature	Core i5-661	Xeon E5440
MSRP	$196-72%	$690
Performance per Dollar	12.2+259%	3.4
Release Date	2010	2007

Search Core i5-661 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5440 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.