Athlon II X4 640 vs Xeon X3430
Aggregated performance score
Xeon X3430 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2049 | 2074 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.36 | 2.92 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | no data | Propus (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 1 July 2009 (14 years ago) | 11 May 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
| Current price | $51 | $49 (0.6x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon II X4 640 has 711% better value for money than Xeon X3430.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB Intel® Smart Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 169 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1156,LGA1156 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640 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 X3430 and Athlon II X4 640 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 X3430 and Athlon II X4 640. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| 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.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Xeon X3430 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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%
Xeon X3430 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 2% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon X3430 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 22% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon X3430 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by 12% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.48 | 1.45 |
| Recency | 1 July 2009 | 11 May 2010 |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640.
Be aware that Xeon X3430 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon II X4 640 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3430 and Athlon II X4 640, 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.
