Xeon 3.20 vs 3.2
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 3354 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.12 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Irwindale (2004) | Gallatin (2003−2004) |
| Release date | June 2004 (21 years ago) | October 2003 (22 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon 3.2 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 | 3.2 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 16 KB | 8 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Die size | 169 mm2 | 237 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 178 million | 286 million |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon 3.2 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | 604 | 604 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 97 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon 3.2 and Xeon 3.20. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 97 Watt |
Xeon 3.2 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon 3.20, on the other hand, has 39.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Intel Xeon 3.2 and Intel Xeon 3.20. We've got no test results to judge.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
