Opteron 246 vs Opteron 152

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

Opteron 152
2005
1 core / 1 thread, 104 Watt
0.27
Opteron 246
2003
1 core / 1 thread, 89 Watt
0.39
+44.4%

Opteron 246 outperforms Opteron 152 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Opteron 152 and Opteron 246 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking31993066
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency0.250.42
Architecture codenameVenus (2004−2005)SledgeHammer (2003−2005)
Release date2 August 2005 (19 years ago)August 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$109

Detailed specifications

Opteron 152 and Opteron 246 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 cores1 (Single-Core)1 (Single-Core)
Threads11
Base clock speed2.6 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz2 GHz
L1 cache128 KB128 KB
L2 cache1 MB1 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography90 nm130 nm
Die size115 mm2193 mm2
Number of transistors114 million106 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Opteron 152 and Opteron 246 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 configuration12
Socket939940
Power consumption (TDP)104 Watt89 Watt

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 152 and Opteron 246. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)no data

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.

Opteron 152 0.27
Opteron 246 0.39
+44.4%

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.

Opteron 152 428
Opteron 246 632
+47.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 0.39
Chip lithography 90 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 104 Watt 89 Watt

Opteron 152 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

Opteron 246, on the other hand, has a 44.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 16.9% lower power consumption.

The Opteron 246 is our recommended choice as it beats the Opteron 152 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Opteron 152
Opteron 152
AMD Opteron 246
Opteron 246

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


5 1 vote

Rate Opteron 152 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 2 votes

Rate Opteron 246 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Opteron 152 and Opteron 246, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.