Xeon Phi 7295 vs 2.66
Primary details
Comparing Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3137 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon Phi |
| Power efficiency | 0.29 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Prestonia (2002) | Knights Mill (2017) |
| Release date | November 2002 (22 years ago) | 1 December 2017 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295 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) | 72 (Doheptaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 288 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 15 |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 32K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 217 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 77 °C |
| Number of transistors | 55 million | 8,000 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.550-1.2V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295 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 | 1 |
| Socket | 604 | SVLCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 320 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-2400 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 384 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 115.212 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Max video memory | no data | 1 GB |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 0 MHz |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 36 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 72 |
| Threads | 1 | 288 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 320 Watt |
Xeon 2.66 has 259.6% lower power consumption.
Xeon Phi 7295, on the other hand, has 7100% more physical cores and 28700% more threads, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 2.66 and Xeon Phi 7295, 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.
