Phenom II X4 940 BE vs Xeon X3230
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2239 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | no data | Deneb (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 1 July 2007 (17 years ago) | 8 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE 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 | no data | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB L2 Cache | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 258 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 60 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 758 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | AM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 July 2007 | 8 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 125 Watt |
Xeon X3230 has 31.6% lower power consumption.
Phenom II X4 940 BE, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon X3230 is a server/workstation processor while Phenom II X4 940 BE is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3230 and Phenom II X4 940 BE, 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.
