Athlon 3000G vs Xeon X5647

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X5647
2011
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
2.80
Athlon 3000G
2019
2 cores / 4 threads, 35 Watt
2.82
+0.7%

Athlon 3000G outperforms Xeon X5647 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking16751672
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.785.27
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Athlon
Power efficiency2.047.63
Architecture codenameWestmere-EP (2010−2011)Zen+ (2018−2019)
Release date14 February 2011 (13 years ago)21 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$175$49

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Athlon 3000G has 196% better value for money than Xeon X5647.

Detailed specifications

Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads84
Base clock speed2.93 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz3.5 GHz
Bus typeno dataPCIe 3.0
Multiplierno data35
L1 cache64 KB (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache12 MB (shared)4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm14 nm
Die size239 mm2209.78 mm2?
Maximum core temperature80 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,170 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G 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 configuration21 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1366,LGA1366AM4
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI++
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology1.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE40 Bitno data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G 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 X5647 and Athlon 3000G 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 X5647 and Athlon 3000G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size288 GB64 GB?
Max memory channels3no data
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data6

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 X5647 2.80
Athlon 3000G 2.82
+0.7%

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.

Xeon X5647 4441
Athlon 3000G 4484
+1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.80 2.82
Recency 14 February 2011 21 November 2019
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 35 Watt

Xeon X5647 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Athlon 3000G, on the other hand, has a 0.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 271.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G.

Be aware that Xeon X5647 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 3000G is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5647 and Athlon 3000G, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon X5647
Xeon X5647
AMD Athlon 3000G
Athlon 3000G

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 17 votes

Rate Xeon X5647 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 2101 vote

Rate Athlon 3000G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X5647 or Athlon 3000G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.