Xeon 6710E vs Athlon II M320
Primary details
Comparing Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD Athlon II | no data |
| Architecture codename | Caspian (2009) | Sierra Forest (2024) |
| Release date | 10 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 3 June 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,749 |
Detailed specifications
Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3200 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 4 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | no data | 96 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 85 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E 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 | no data | 2 |
| Socket | Socket S1 (S1g3) | 4710 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR2 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 88 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 September 2009 | 3 June 2024 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 64 |
| Threads | 2 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 205 Watt |
Athlon II M320 has 485.7% lower power consumption.
Xeon 6710E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, 3100% more physical cores and 3100% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Athlon II M320 is a notebook processor while Xeon 6710E is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon II M320 and Xeon 6710E, 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.
