Xeon Gold 6403N vs Opteron 3320 EE
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2327 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 4.58 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Delhi (2012−2013) | no data |
| Release date | 4 December 2012 (11 years ago) | 1 July 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 1.9 GHz | 1.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 4096 KB | no data |
| L3 cache | 8192 KB (shared) | 45 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 315 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 85 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N 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 | AM3+ | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 185 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-4000 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 4 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 64 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 4 December 2012 | 1 July 2023 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 24 |
| Threads | 4 | 48 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 185 Watt |
Opteron 3320 EE has 640% lower power consumption.
Xeon Gold 6403N, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, and 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 3320 EE and Xeon Gold 6403N, 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.
