Xeon W3680 vs Apple M2
Aggregate performance score
Apple M2 outperforms Xeon W3680 by a whopping 113% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing M2 and Xeon W3680 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 814 | 1344 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.27 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Apple Apple M-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 44.48 | 3.21 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Gulftown (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 10 June 2022 (2 years ago) | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $350 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
M2 and Xeon W3680 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.424 GHz | 3.33 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.48 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 2 MB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 20 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 239 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 68 °C |
| Number of transistors | 20000 Million | 1,170 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on M2 and Xeon W3680 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 | no data | FCLGA1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M2 and Xeon W3680. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
Security technologies
M2 and Xeon W3680 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 M2 and Xeon W3680 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M2 and Xeon W3680. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 24 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 32 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M2 10-Core GPU ( - 1398 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M2 and Xeon W3680.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.40 | 4.41 |
| Recency | 10 June 2022 | 16 March 2010 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 6 |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 130 Watt |
Apple M2 has a 113.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 33.3% more physical cores, a 540% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.
Xeon W3680, on the other hand, has 50% more threads.
The M2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3680 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M2 is a notebook processor while Xeon W3680 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M2 and Xeon W3680, 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.
