Xeon 6952P vs Opteron 6282 SE
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1411 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.56 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 2.72 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Interlagos (2011−2012) | Granite Rapids (2024) |
| Release date | 14 November 2011 (13 years ago) | 24 September 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,090 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 96 |
| Threads | 16 | 192 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (per die) | 480 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 316 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P 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 | 4 | 2 |
| Socket | G34 | 7529 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 400 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 96 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 14 November 2011 | 24 September 2024 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 96 |
| Threads | 16 | 192 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 400 Watt |
Opteron 6282 SE has 185.7% lower power consumption.
Xeon 6952P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, 500% more physical cores and 1100% more threads, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Opteron 6282 SE and Xeon 6952P, 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.
