Xeon 3.20 vs Opteron 254
Aggregate performance score
Xeon 3.20 outperforms Opteron 254 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3440 | 3423 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Troy (2005) | Gallatin (2003−2004) |
| Release date | August 2005 (20 years ago) | October 2003 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 254 and Xeon 3.20 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 | 2.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | no data | 237 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 286 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 254 and Xeon 3.20 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) | 92 Watt | 97 Watt |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.26 | 0.27 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 92 Watt | 97 Watt |
Opteron 254 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process, and 5.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon 3.20, on the other hand, has a 3.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between AMD Opteron 254 and Intel Xeon 3.20.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
