Core m7-6Y75 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 m7-6Y75 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 m7-6Y75 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 m7-6Y75

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $297 less on MSRP ($393 MSRP vs $690 MSRP).
✅Delivers 75.3% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 6.0 vs 3.4 PassMark/$ ($393 MSRP vs $690 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5440 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,363 vs 2,367).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5440, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads.
❌540% higher power demand at 512W vs 80W.

Xeon E5440

2007

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+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 512W, a 432W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.4 vs 6.0 PassMark/$ ($690 MSRP vs $393 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5440 better than Core m7-6Y75?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5440 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core m7-6Y75 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5440 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.1% 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, Xeon E5440 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 200% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 4 MB).

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

Xeon E5440 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Xeon E5440 comes in 75.6% more expensive on MSRP at $690 MSRP versus $393 MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core m7-6Y75 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 4.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Core m7-6Y75 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2007). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core m7-6Y75 vs Xeon E5440 Technical Specifications

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

Core m7-6Y75

The Core m7-6Y75 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake-Y (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 4.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,363 points. Launch price was $393.

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 m7-6Y75 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5440 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon E5440 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Core m7-6Y75 versus 0.83 GHz on the Xeon E5440 — a 115.5% clock advantage for the Core m7-6Y75 (base: 1.2 GHz vs 2.83 GHz). The Core m7-6Y75 uses the Skylake-Y (2015) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5440 uses Harpertown (2007−2008) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core m7-6Y75 scores 2,363 against the Xeon E5440's 2,367 — a 0.2% lead for the Xeon E5440. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core m7-6Y75 vs 12 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E5440.

Feature	Core m7-6Y75	Xeon E5440
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz+273%	0.83 GHz
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	2.83 GHz+136%
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	12 MB L2 Cache+200%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	6 MB (total)+2300%
Process	14 nm-69%	45 nm
Architecture	Skylake-Y (2015)	Harpertown (2007−2008)
PassMark	2,363	2,367

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core m7-6Y75 uses the FCBGA1515 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5440 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core m7-6Y75	Xeon E5440
Socket	FCBGA1515	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core m7-6Y75 was priced at $393, while the Xeon E5440 came in at $690. On launch pricing ($393 vs $690), Core m7-6Y75 was $297 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core m7-6Y75 delivers 6.0 pts/$ vs 3.4 pts/$ for the Xeon E5440 — making the Core m7-6Y75 the 54.7% better value option.

Feature	Core m7-6Y75	Xeon E5440
MSRP	$393-43%	$690
Performance per Dollar	6.0+76%	3.4
Release Date	2015	2007

Search Core m7-6Y75 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.