Xeon 3.06 vs Opteron 248
Aggregate performance score
Xeon 3.06 outperforms Opteron 248 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 248 and Xeon 3.06 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3102 | 3067 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.32 | 0.33 |
| Architecture codename | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | Gallatin (2003−2004) |
| Release date | November 2003 (21 year ago) | March 2003 (21 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $12 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 248 and Xeon 3.06 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 1 |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.07 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 16K |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | 237 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 286 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 248 and Xeon 3.06 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 | 2 | 2 |
| Socket | 940 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 97 Watt |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.30 | 0.34 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 97 Watt |
Opteron 248 has 9% lower power consumption.
Xeon 3.06, on the other hand, has a 13.3% higher aggregate performance score.
The Xeon 3.06 is our recommended choice as it beats the Opteron 248 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 248 and Xeon 3.06, 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.
