Xeon D-2876NT vs Athlon XP 1700+
Primary details
Comparing Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT 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 | Desktop processor | Server |
| Architecture codename | Thoroughbred (2001−2002) | no data |
| Release date | October 2001 (23 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.47 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 20 MB |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | no data |
| Die size | 150 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 37 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | A | FCBGA2579 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 32 |
| USB revision | no data | 3.0 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 24 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 4 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 16 |
| Threads | 1 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 100 Watt |
Athlon XP 1700+ has 56.3% lower power consumption.
Xeon D-2876NT, on the other hand, has 1500% more physical cores and 3100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon XP 1700+ is a desktop processor while Xeon D-2876NT is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon XP 1700+ and Xeon D-2876NT, 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.
