Ryzen 7 8700F vs Xeon 3.06
Primary details
Comparing Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 253 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 64.45 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Gallatin (2003−2004) | Phoenix |
| Release date | March 2003 (21 year ago) | 1 April 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Current price | $79 | $269 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.07 GHz | 5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 16K | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 2 MB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 237 mm2 | 178 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 286 million | 25,000 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F 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 | AM5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 97 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | 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 Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen 7 8700F outperforms Xeon 3.06 by 5748% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 97 Watt | 65 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon 3.06 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 7 8700F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon 3.06 and Ryzen 7 8700F, 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.
