Athlon 64 X2 4600+ vs Xeon E3-1230 v3
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1326 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.49 | no data |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop processor |
| Series | Xeon (Desktop) | 2x Athlon 64 (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Windsor (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $240 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 1000 MHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 90 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ 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 | FCLGA1150 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| SIPP | + | - |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+ 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 Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 (Desktop) 4600+.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | no data |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon E3-1230 v3 has 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 309.1% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon 64 X2 4600+, on the other hand, has 23.1% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 4600+. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon E3-1230 v3 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 64 X2 4600+ is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1230 v3 and Athlon 64 X2 4600+, 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.
